Abstract

BackgroundRendezvous endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreaticography (ERCP) is a well-established method for treatment of choledocholithiasis. The primary aim of this study was to determine how different techniques for management of common bile duct stone (CBDS) clearance in patients undergoing cholecystectomy have changed over time at tertiary referral hospitals (TRH) and county/community hospitals (CH). The secondary aim was to see if postoperative rendezvous ERCP is a safe, effective and feasible alternative to intraoperative rendezvous ERCP in the management of CBDS.MethodsData were retrieved from the Swedish registry for cholecystectomy and ERCP (GallRiks) 2006–2016. All cholecystectomies, where CBDS were found at intraoperative cholangiography, and with complete 30-day follow-up (n = 10,386) were identified. Data concerning intraoperative and postoperative complications, readmission and reoperation within 30 days were retrieved for patients where intraoperative ERCP (n = 2290) and preparation for postoperative ERCP were performed (n = 2283).ResultsIntraoperative ERCP increased (7.5% 2006; 43.1% 2016) whereas preparation for postoperative ERCP decreased (21.2% 2006; 17.2% 2016) during 2006–2016. CBDS management differed between TRHs and CHs. Complications were higher in the postoperative rendezvous ERCP group: Odds Ratio [OR] 1.69 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.16–2.45) for intraoperative complications and OR 1.50 (CI 1.29–1.75) for postoperative complications. Intraoperative bleeding OR 2.46 (CI 1.17–5.16), postoperative bile leakage OR 1.89 (CI 1.23–2.90) and postoperative infection with abscess OR 1.55 (CI 1.05–2.29) were higher in the postoperative group. Neither post-ERCP pancreatitis, postoperative bleeding, cholangitis, percutaneous drainage, antibiotic treatment, ICU stay, readmission/reoperation within 30 days nor 30-day mortality differed between groups.ConclusionsTechniques for management of CBDS found at cholecystectomy have changed over time and differ between TRH and CH. Rendezvous ERCP is a safe and effective method. Even though intraoperative rendezvous ERCP is the preferred method, postoperative rendezvous ERCP constitutes an acceptable alternative where ERCP resources are lacking or limited.

Highlights

  • Rendezvous endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreaticography (ERCP) is a well-established method for treatment of choledocholithiasis

  • Data for common bile duct stone (CBDS) clearance and complications were retrieved for intraoperative rendezvous ERCP (n = 2290) as well as for Univariate and multivariate regression analyzes were used as well as Pearson Chi Square Test and Student’s T Test

  • The analyzes were based on patients undergoing cholecystectomy with intraoperative ERCP and patients undergoing cholecystectomy as well as postoperative ERCP in two separate procedures

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Rendezvous endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreaticography (ERCP) is a well-established method for treatment of choledocholithiasis. The secondary aim was to see if postoperative rendezvous ERCP is a safe, effective and feasible alternative to intraoperative rendezvous ERCP in the management of CBDS. Data concerning intraoperative and postoperative complications, readmission and reoperation within 30 days were retrieved for patients where intraoperative ERCP (n = 2290) and preparation for postoperative ERCP were performed (n = 2283). CBDS management differed between TRHs and CHs. Complications were higher in the postoperative rendezvous ERCP group: Odds Ratio [OR] 1.69 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.16–2.45) for intraoperative complications and OR 1.50 (CI 1.29–1.75) for postoperative complications. Neither post-ERCP pancreatitis, postoperative bleeding, cholangitis, percutaneous drainage, antibiotic treatment, ICU stay, readmission/reoperation within 30 days nor 30-day mortality differed between groups. Even though intraoperative rendezvous ERCP is the preferred method, postoperative rendezvous ERCP constitutes an acceptable alternative where ERCP resources are lacking or limited

Objectives
Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.