Journal List > Korean J Gastroenterol > v.54(1) > 1006601

Baek, Kim, Park, Park, Cho, Sohn, Jeon, and Kim: Risk Factors for Recurrent Bile Duct Stones after Endoscopic Clearance of Common Bile Duct Stones

Abstract

Background/Aims

We aimed to explore the risk factors contributing to the recurrence of common bile duct (CBD) stones after successful endoscopic stone clearance, focused on the anatomical factors of CBD and presence or absence of ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA)/Rowachol medication.

Methods

One hundred fourteen patients who underwent CBD stone(s) extraction by endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and endoscopic sphincterotomy at our institution from August 2004 to January 2007 were included. Univariate and multivariate analyses for the risk factors including the distal CBD angle, length of the distal CBD arm and medication such as ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) and/or Rowachol for recurrent CBD stone(s) were performed.

Results

The recurrence of CBD stone(s) was found in 22 (19.3%) patients. On univariate analysis, presence of pneumobilia, presence of type 1 or type 2 periampullary diverticulum, mechanical lithotripsy and multiple sessions of ERCP were significant contributors for the recurrence of CBD stone(s). On multivariate analysis, the presence of type 1 periampullary diverticulum (OR 7.90, 95% CI: 1.56-40.16) and multiple sessions of ERCP (OR 7.56, 95% CI: 2.21-25.87) were significant contributors. Acute distal CBD angulation (≤135 o), shorter distal CBD arm (≤36 mm), technical difficulty of CBD stone(s) clearance, and the prescription of UDCA and/or Rowachol were not significantly associated with the recurrence of CBD stone(s).

Conclusions

The recurrence of CBD stone(s) was more commonly found in the patients group with type 1 periampullary diverticulum and multiple sessions of ERCP. Therefore, patients with these risk factors should be on regular follow up.

REFERENCES

1. Baron TH, Fleischer DE. Past, present, and future of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: perspectives on the National Institutes of Health consensus conference. Mayo Clin Proc. 2002; 77:407–412.
crossref
2. Kawai K, Akasaka Y, Murakami K, Tada M, Koli Y. Endoscopic sphincterotomy of the ampulla of Vater. Gastrointest Endosc. 1974; 20:148–151.
crossref
3. Classen M, Demling L. Endoscopic sphincterotomy of the papilla of Vater and extraction of stones from the choledochal duct (author's transl). Dtsch Med Wochenschr. 1974; 99:496–497.
4. Ando T, Tsuyuguchi T, Okugawa T, et al. Risk factors for recurrent bile duct stones after endoscopic papillotomy. Gut. 2003; 52:116–121.
crossref
5. Kim DI, Kim MH, Lee SK, et al. Risk factors for recurrence of primary bile duct stones after endoscopic biliary sphincterotomy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2001; 54:42–48.
crossref
6. Pereira-Lima JC, Jakobs R, Winter UH, et al. Longterm results (7 to 10 years) of endoscopic papillotomy for choledocholithiasis. Multivariate analysis of prognostic factors for the recurrence of biliary symptoms. Gastrointest Endosc. 1998; 48:457–464.
crossref
7. Keizman D, Shalom MI, Konikoff FM. An angulated common bile duct predisposes to recurrent symptomatic bile duct stones after endoscopic stone extraction. Surg Endosc. 2006; 20:1594–1599.
crossref
8. Prat F, Malak NA, Pelletier G, et al. Biliary symptoms and complications more than 8 years after endoscopic sphincterotomy for choledocholithiasis. Gastroenterology. 1996; 110:894–899.
crossref
9. Cheon YK, Lehman GA. Identification of risk factors for stone recurrence after endoscopic treatment of bile duct stones. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2006; 18:461–464.
crossref
10. Kim HJ, Choi HS, Park JH, et al. Factors influencing the technical difficulty of endoscopic clearance of bile duct stones. Gastrointest Endosc. 2007; 66:1154–1160.
crossref
11. Gonzá lez-Koch A, Nervi F. Medical management of common bile duct stones. World J Surg. 1998; 22:1145–1150.
12. Somerville KW, Ellis WR, Whitten BH, Balfour TW, Bell GD. Stones in the common bile duct: experience with medical dissolution therapy. Postgrad Med J. 1985; 61:313–316.
crossref
13. Katsinelos P, Kountouras J, Paroutoglou G, Chatzimavroudis G, Zavos C. Combination of endoprostheses and oral ursodeoxycholic acid or placebo in the treatment of difficult to extract common bile duct stones. Dig Liver Dis. 2008; 40:453–459.
crossref
14. Boix J, Lorenzo-Zuniga V, Ananos F, Domè nech E, Morillas RM, Gassull MA. Impact of periampullary duodenal diverticula at endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: a pro-posed classification of periampullary duodenal diverticula. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2006; 16:208–211.
crossref
15. Cotton PB, Geenen JE, Sherman S, et al. Endoscopic sphincterotomy for stones by experts is safe, even in younger patients with normal ducts. Ann Surg. 1998; 227:201–204.
crossref
16. Strasberg SM, Soper NJ. Management of choledocholithiasis in the laparoscopic era. Gastroenterology. 1995; 109:320–322.
crossref
17. Kim MH, Yoo BM, Song IH, et al. Effects of ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) on dissolution of radiolucent gallbladder stones. Korean J Gastroenterol. 1995; 27:457–462.
18. Yoon YB. Effects of ursodeoxycholic acid on dissolution of cholesterol gallstones among Korean patients. Korean J Gastroenterol. 1988; 20:386–394.
19. Leiss O, von Bergmann K. Effect of Rowachol on biliary lip-id secretion and serum lipids in normal volunteers. Gut. 1985; 26:32–37.
crossref
20. Bouchier IA. Gall stones. BMJ. 1990; 300:592–597.
crossref
21. Sandstad O, Osnes T, Skar V, Urdal P, Osnes M. Common bile duct stones are mainly brown and associated with duodenal diverticula. Gut. 1994; 35:1464–1467.
crossref
22. Tham TC, Kelly M. Association of periampullary duodenal diverticula with bile duct stones and with technical success of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Endoscopy. 2004; 36:1050–1053.
crossref
23. Kim JM, Lee DK, Baik SK, et al. Clinical characteristics of periampullary diverticulum. Korean J Gastrointest Endose. 1996; 16:937–944.
24. Lee HS, Kim CD, Hyun JH. The relationship between juxta-papillary duodenal diverticula and cholelithiasis. Korean J Med. 1993; 45:490–496.

Table 1.
Clinical Characteristics of Patients and ERCP Findings (n=114)
Values
Age (years) 63.1±14.5
Men/Female (%) 61 (53.5)/53 (46.5)
Jaundice (%) 88 (77.2)
Total bilirubin (mg/dL) 4.4±3.6
Previous cholecystectomy (%) 23 (20.2)
Previous Billroth-II operation (%) 3 (2.6)
UDCA and/or Rowachol medication (%) 58 (53.2)
Periampullary diverticulum (%) 53 (46.5)
Type 1 3 (2.6)
Type 2 41 (36.0)
Type 3 9 (7.9)
Mechanical lithotripsy (%) 8 (7.0)
Multiple sessions of ERCP (≥2 sessions, %) 41 (28.5)
Bile duct diameter (mm) 17.5±5.8

UDCA, ursodeoxycholic acid; ERCP, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography.

Values are mean± SD.

Table 2.
Univariate Analysis of Risk Factors for Recurrent Common Bile Duc ct Stones (n=114)
Patients with recurrent stone Patients without recurrent stone p-value
n=22 (19.3%) n=92 (80.7%)
Age (years) 66.1±12.6 62.4±14.8 NS
Men/Female 13/9 48/44 NS
Jaundice (%) 15 (68.2) 73 (79.3) NS
Medication (%) 12 (54.5) 46 (52.9) NS
Previous cholecystectomy (%) 7 (31.8) 16 (17.4) NS
Previous Billroth-II operation (%) 1 (4.5) 2 (2.2) NS
Peripapillary diverticulum (%) 14 (63.6) 39 (42.4) NS
Type 1 or 2 periampullary diverticulum (%) 13 (59.1) 31 (33.7) 0.028
CBD dilatation (≥15 mm, %) 18 (81.8) 55 (59.8) NS
Mechanical lithotripsy (%) 4 (18.2) 4 (4.3) 0.022
Multiple sessions of ERCP (≥2, %) 16 (72.7) 25 (28.1) <0.001
Stone size (≥15 mm; %) 12 (54.5) 37 (40.2) NS
Distal arm length (≤36 mm, %) 8 (36.4) 36 (39.1) NS
Distal CBD angulation (≤135 o, %) 4 (18.2) 19 (20.7) NS
No. of stone(s)≥5 (%) 5 (22.7) 14 (15.2) NS

CBD, common bile duct; ERCP, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography; NS, non significant.

Values are mean± SD.

Table 3.
Multivariate Analysis of Risk Factors for Recurrent Common Bile Duct Stones
Variables Relative risk (95% CI) p-value
Multiple sessions of ERCP (≥2) 7.56 (2.21, 25.87) 0.001
Type 1 periampullary diverticulum 7.90 (1.56, 40.16) 0.013
Type 2 periampullary diverticulum 1.72 (0.20, 15.13) NS
Mechanical lithotripsy 2.35 (0.63, 8.79) NS

CI, confidence interval; ERCP, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography; NS, not significant; CBD, common bile duct.

TOOLS
Similar articles