Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The clinical significance of bile duct sludge: is it different from bile duct stones?

  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Some patients with suspected common bile duct (CBD) stones are found to have sludge and no stones. Although sludge in the gallbladder is a precursor of gallbladder stones, the significance of bile duct sludge (BDS) is poorly defined. This study aimed to compare BDS with bile duct stones in terms of frequency, associated risk factors, and clinical outcome after endoscopic therapy.

Methods

The study enrolled 228 patients who underwent therapeutic endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) for suspected choledocholithiasis. The patients were divided into two groups: patients with BDS but no stones on ERCP and patients with CBD stones. The presence of risk factors for bile duct stones (age, periampullary diverticulum, ductal dilation or angulation, previous open cholecystectomy) were assessed at ERCP. Follow-up data (36 ± 19 months) were obtained from medical records and by patient questioning.

Results

Bile duct sludge occurred in 14% (31/228) of patients and was more common in females. After endoscopic clearance, CBD stones recurred in 17% (33/197) of the patients with CBD stones, and in 16% (5/31) of the patients with BDS (p = 0.99). Common bile duct dilation was less common in the sludge group. The other known risk factors for recurrent CBD stones (age, previous open cholecystectomy, bile duct angulation, and the presence of a peripampullary diverticulum) were not statistically different between the two groups.

Conclusions

The findings indicate that the clinical significance of symptomatic BDS is similar to that of CBD stones. Bile duct sludge seems to be an early stage of choledocholithiasis.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Carey MC, Cahalane MJ (1988) Whither biliary sludge? Gastroenterology 95: 508–523

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Lee SP, Maher K, Nicholls JF (1988) Origin and fate of biliary sludge. Gastroenterology 94: 170–176

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Ohara N, Schaefer J (1990) Clinical significance of biliary sludge. J Clin Gastroenterol 12: 291–294

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Moskovitz M, Min TC, Gavaler JS (1986) The microscopic examination of bile in patients with biliary pain and negative imaging tests. Am J Gastroenterol 81:329–333

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Grier JF, Cohen SW, Grafton WD, Gholson CF (1994) Acute suppurative cholangitis associated with choledochal sludge. Am J Gastroenterol 89: 617–619

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Park HZ, Lee SP, Schy AL (1991) Ceftriaxone-associated gallbladder sludge: identification of calcium–ceftriaxone salt as a major component of gallbladder precipitate. Gastroenterology 100: 1665–1670

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Lee SP, Nicholls JF, Park HZ (1992) Biliary sludge as a cause of acute pancreatitis. N Engl J Med 326: 589–593

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Ros E, Navarro S, 8Bru C, Garcia-Puges A, Valderrama R (1991) Occult microlithiasis in “idiopathic” acute pancreatitis: prevention of relapses by cholecystectomy or ursodeoxycholic acid therapy. Gastroenterology 101: 1701–1709

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Ko CW, Sekijima JH, Lee SP (1999) Biliary sludge. Ann Intern Med 130: 301–311

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Filly RA, Allen B, Minton MJ, Bernhoft R, Way LW (1980) In vitro investigation of the origin of echoes with biliary sludge. J Clin Ultrasound 8: 193–200

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Allen B, Bernhoft R, Blanckaert N, Svanvik J, Filly R, Gooding G, Way L (1981) Sludge is calcium bilirubinate associated with bile stasis. Am J Surg 141: 51–56

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Lee SP, Hayashi A, Kim YS (1994) Biliary sludge: curiosity or culprit? (editorial) Hepatology 20: 523–525

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Lee SP, Nicholls JF (1986) Nature and composition of biliary sludge. Gastroenterology 90: 677–686

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Johnston DE, Kaplan MM (1993) Pathogenesis and treatment of gallstones. N Engl J Med 328: 412–421

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Paumgartner G, Sauerbruch T (1991) Gallbladder stones: pathogenesis. Lancet 338: 1117–1124

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Lee SP (1990) Pathogenesis of biliary sludge. Hepatology 12: 200S–2005S

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Warren BL (1987) Association between cholangiographic angulation of the common bile duct and choledocholithiasis. South African J Surg 25: 13–15

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Kim DI, Kim MH, Lee SK, Seo DW, Choi WB, Lee SS, Park HJ, Joo YH, Yoo KS, Kim HJ, Min YI (2001) Risk factors for recurrence of primary bile duct stones after endoscopic biliary sphincterotomy. Gastrointest Endosc 54: 42–48

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Sugiyama M, Atomi Y (2002) Risk factors predictive of late complications after endoscopic sphincterotomy for bile duct stones: long-term (more than 10 years) follow-up study. Am J Gastroenterol 97: 2763–2767

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Saito M, Tsuyuguchi T, Yamaguchi T, Ishihara T, Saisho H (2000) Long-term outcome of endoscopic papillotomy for choledocholithiasis with cholecystolithiasis. Gastrointest Endosc 51: 540–545

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Bergman JJ, van der Mey S, Rauws EA, Tijssen JG, Gouma DJ, Tytgat GN, Huibregtse K (1996) Long-term follow-up after endoscopic sphincterotomy for bile duct stones in patients younger than 60 years of age. Gastrointest Endosc 44: 643–649

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Ando T, Tsuyuguchi T, Okugawa T, Saito M, Ishihara T, Yamaguchi T, Saisho H (2003) Risk factors for recurrent bile duct stones after endoscopic papillotomy. Gut 52: 116–121

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Pereira-Lima JC, Jakobs R, Winter UH, Benz C, Martin WR, Adamek HE, Riemann JF (1998) Long-term results (7 to 10 years) of endoscopic sphincterotomy for choledocholithiasis: multivariate analysis of prognostic factors for the recurrence of biliary symptoms. Gastrointest Endosc 48: 457–464

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Ueno N, Ozawa Y, Aizawa T (2003) Prognostic factors for recurrence of bile duct stones after endoscopic treatment by sphincter dilation. Gastrointest Endosc 58: 336–340

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Tanaka M, Takahata S, Konomi H, Matsunaga H, Yokohata K, Takeda T, Utsunomiya N, Ikeda S (1998) Long-term consequence of endoscopic sphincterotomy for bile duct stones. Gastrointest Endosc 48: 465–469

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Keizman D, Ish Shalom M, Konikoff FM (2006) An angulated common bile duct predisposes to recurrent symptomatic bile duct stones after endoscopic stone extraction. Surg Endosc 20:1594–1599

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Lygidakis NJ (1983) Incidence and significance of primary stones of the common bile duct in choledocholithiasis. Surg Gynecol Obstet 157: 434–436

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Angelico M, De Santis A, Capocaccia L (1990) Biliary sludge: a critical update. J Clin Gastroenterol 12: 656–662

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Gastroenterology, Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, and the Minerva Center for Cholesterol Gallstones and Lipid Metabolism in the Liver, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel

    D. Keizman, M. Ish-Shalom & F. M. Konikoff

Authors
  1. D. Keizman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. M. Ish-Shalom
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. F. M. Konikoff
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to F. M. Konikoff.

Additional information

D. Keizman and M. Ish-Shalom have equally contributed to this study

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Keizman, D., Ish-Shalom, M. & Konikoff, F.M. The clinical significance of bile duct sludge: is it different from bile duct stones?. Surg Endosc 21, 769–773 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-006-9153-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-006-9153-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation