63
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Outcomes of endoscopic management of primary and refractory postcholecystectomy biliary leaks in a multicentre review of 178 patients

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Biliary leaks have been treated with endoscopic management using different techniques with conflicting results. Furthermore the appropriate rescue therapy for refractory leaks has not been established. We evaluated the clinical effectiveness of initial endotherapy for postcholecystectomy biliary leaks using an homogenous approach (sphincterotomy + placement of a 10-French plastic stent) in a large series of patients as well as the optimal and efficacy of rescue endotherapy for refractory biliary leaks.

          Methods

          This was a multicenter, retrospective study of 178 patients who underwent endoscopic management of postcholecystectomy biliary leaks with a combination of biliary sphincterotomy and the placement of a large-bore (10-French) plastic stent. Data were collected to analyze the clinical outcomes and technical success, efficacy of the rescue endotherapy and the need for surgery, adverse events and prognostic factors for clinical success of endotherapy.

          Results

          Following endotherapy, closure of the leak was accomplished in 162/178 patients (91.0 %). The multivariate logistic model showed that the type of leak, namely a high-grade biliary leak, was the only independent prognostic factor associated with treatment failure (OR = 26.78; 95 % CI = 6.59–108.83; P < 0.01). The remaining 16 patients were treated with multiple plastic stents (MPSs) with a success rate of 62.5 % (10 patients). The use of fewer than 3 plastic stents ( P = 0.023) and a high-grade biliary leak ( P = 0.034) were shown to be significant predictors of treatment failure with MPSs in refractory bile leaks. The 6 patients in whom the placement of MPSs failed were retreated with a fully cover self-expandable metallic stent (FCSEMS), resulting in closure of the leak in all cases.

          Conclusions

          Endotherapy of biliary leaks with a combination of biliary sphincterotomy and the placement of a large-bore plastic stent is associated with a high rate of success (90 %). However in our series there were several failures using MPSs as a strategy for rescue endotherapy suggesting that refractory biliary leaks should be treated with FCSEMS especially in patients with high-grade leaks.

          Related collections

          Most cited references27

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Endoscopic sphincterotomy complications and their management: an attempt at consensus.

          Despite its relative safety (in comparison with surgery), and undoubted role in many clinical circumstances, biliary sphincterotomy is the most dangerous procedure routinely performed by endoscopists. Complications occur in about 10% of patients; 2 to 3% have a prolonged hospital stay, with a risk of dying. This document is an attempt to provide guidelines for prevention and management of complications, based on a workshop of selected experts, and a comprehensive review of the literature. We emphasize particularly the importance of specialist training, disinfection, drainage, and collaboration with surgical colleagues.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Impact of endoscopic intervention in 100 patients with suspected postcholecystectomy bile leak.

            Bile leak is a recognized complication of cholecystectomy. Endoscopic intervention is widely accepted as a treatment for this complication, but the optimal form is not well defined. An ERCP database was reviewed retrospectively to identify all cases of bile leak related to cholecystectomy. Patient records and endoscopy reports were reviewed, and structured telephone interviews were conducted to collect data. A total of 100 patients (61 women, 39 men; mean age, 53 [17] years) with suspected postcholecystectomy bile leak were referred for ERCP. Cholecystectomy was commenced laparoscopically in 83 patients (with an open conversion rate of 30%). The most common symptoms were pain (n = 62) and fever (n = 37). Cholangiography was obtained in 96 patients. A leak was identified in 80/96 patients, the most common site being the cystic-duct stump (48), followed by ducts of Luschka (15), the T-tube site (7), and other sites (10). Treatment included stent insertion alone (40), sphincterotomy alone (18), combination stent/sphincterotomy (31), none (6), and other (1). Three patients with major bile-duct injuries were excluded from the analysis. Endoscopic therapy was unsuccessful in 7 patients (6 in the sphincterotomy alone group; p = 0.001). Four patients underwent surgery subsequent to ERCP to control the leak. All 4 were in the sphincterotomy alone group ( p = 0.001). Post-ERCP pancreatitis developed in 4 patients (3 mild, 1 moderate). The optimal endoscopic intervention for postcholecystectomy bile leak should include temporary insertion of a biliary stent.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Endoscopic therapy for bile leak based on a new classification: results in 207 patients.

              Bile leak is among the most common complications of cholecystectomy. Endoscopic therapy is empiric; a systematic approach to management of bile leak has not been established. The severity of bile leak was classified by endoscopic retrograde cholangiography into low grade (leak identified only after intrahepatic opacification) or high grade (leak observed before intrahepatic opacification). Therapy was based on this distinction: biliary sphincterotomy alone for low-grade leaks and stent placement for high-grade leaks. The success of this strategy in consecutive patients treated between 1989 and 1999 was reviewed. A total of 207 patients (127 women, 80 men; median age 57 years) with bile leak were referred for endoscopic management; 134 had undergone laparoscopic, and 72 had open cholecystectomy. Patients presented at a median of 9 days (range 1-50 days) after surgery. Symptoms included pain (56%), jaundice (16%), fever (11%), and abdominal distension (7%). Persistent percutaneous drainage was present in 48%. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiography identified the leak site in 204 patients: cystic duct stump, 159 patients (78%); duct of Luschka, 26 (13%); other, 19 (9%). Of 104 patients with low-grade leaks, 75 had sphincterotomy alone; improvement occurred in 68 patients (91%). Subsequent treatment was required in 7 patients (6 stent, 1 surgery). Stents were placed in the remaining 29/104 patients for the following reasons: biliary stricture (11/29); coagulopathy, precluding sphincterotomy (8/29); severe sepsis (3/29); inadequate drainage after prior sphincterotomy (2/29); and unclear reasons (5/29). Of 100 patients with high-grade leaks, 97 had stent placement. Persistent leakage necessitated another stent insertion in 4 patients. Closure of the leak was documented by endoscopic retrograde cholangiography in all 97 patients. Three patients with leaks not amenable to endoscopic treatment were referred for surgery. Bile-duct stones were identified in 41 patients (28, low-grade group; 13, high-grade group) and were extracted in all cases. Overall, complications occurred in 3 patients (2 pancreatitis, 1 perforation) and were managed conservatively with no mortality. A simple, practical endoscopic classification system for bile leak after cholecystectomy is proposed. This classification has clinical relevance for selection of optimal endoscopic management.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                +351 21 313 6300 , jmtcanena@live.com.pt
                david0rta@hotmail.com
                jmgcoimbra@sapo.pt
                lilianeenailil@gmail.com
                pedro.me.russo@gmail.com
                inesnmarques@zonmail.pt
                14ricardo@gmail.com
                catarinagr@hotmail.com
                teixeira.capela@gmail.com
                dianafbcarvalho@gmail.com
                loureiro.rafaela@gmail.com
                amateusdias@netcabo.pt
                goncalo.o.ramos@gmail.com
                avpc@ip.pt
                menezes_romao@yahoo.com
                geral@curva-de-gauss.pt
                Journal
                BMC Gastroenterol
                BMC Gastroenterol
                BMC Gastroenterology
                BioMed Central (London )
                1471-230X
                19 August 2015
                19 August 2015
                2015
                : 15
                : 105
                Affiliations
                [ ]Department of Gastroenterology, Doutor Fernando Fonseca Hospital, IC 19, 2720-276 Amadora, Portugal
                [ ]Department of Gastroenterology, Pulido Valente Hospital at Centro Hospitalar Lisboa Norte, Alameda das Linhas de Torres n° 117, 1769-001 Lisbon, Portugal
                [ ]Department of Gastroenterology, Santo António dos Capuchos Hospital at Centro Hospitalar Lisboa Central, Nova Medical School-Faculty of Medical Sciences, Alameda Santo António dos Capuchos, 1169-050 Lisbon, Portugal
                [ ]Department of Endoscopy, José Joaquim Fernandes Hospital at Unidade Local de Saúde do Baixo Alentejo, Rua Doutor António Fernandes Covas Lima, 7800-309 Beja, Portugal
                [ ]Curva de Gauss – Research, Training and Consulting, Rua Doutor Eduardo Maria dos Santos, Lote 1, Loja 3, 3525-000 Canas de Senhorim, Portugal
                Article
                334
                10.1186/s12876-015-0334-y
                4545536
                26285593
                46754c23-b5d3-4105-b0b8-8e6da07ddcc7
                © Canena et al. 2015

                Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

                History
                : 29 March 2015
                : 10 August 2015
                Categories
                Research Article
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2015

                Gastroenterology & Hepatology
                Gastroenterology & Hepatology

                Comments

                Comment on this article