Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Indian J Radiol Imaging
DOI: 10.1055/s-0044-1779585
Original Article

A Study on the Spectrum of Imaging Findings of Post-ERCP-Specific Complications: A Retrospective Descriptive Study

Ruchira Mukherji 
1   Department of Radiodiagnosis & Imaging, Army Hospital Research & Referral, Delhi Cantonment, New Delhi, India
,
Manoj Gopinath
1   Department of Radiodiagnosis & Imaging, Army Hospital Research & Referral, Delhi Cantonment, New Delhi, India
› Author Affiliations Funding None.
› Further Information
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Aim The aim of this study was to examine the imaging manifestations of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) specific complications by computed tomography to aid in its early and successful diagnosis and timely intervention.

Method Forty-one cases of imaging having post-ERCP were complications were retrospectively collected and the spectrum of complications and their key imaging features and methods to improve their detection were analyzed.

Result The most common complication detected in computed tomography (CT) post-ERCP was the presence of intra-abdominal collections seen in 21 patients (51.2%). Pancreatitis was seen in 20 of 41 patients (48.7%), while bowel perforation was present in 9 patients (21%). Pleural effusion was present in 8 patients (19.5%), liver abscess in 6 patients (14.6%), cholangitis in 4 patients (9.7%), gallbladder perforation in 4 patients (9.7%), displaced common bile duct stent in 3 patients (7.3%), possibility of main pancreatic duct cannulation in 2 patients (4.8%), vascular injury resulting in right hepatic artery pseudoaneurysm in 1 patient (2.4%), thrombosis of portal vein or its branches in 2 patients (4.8%), superior mesenteric vein thrombosis in 1 patient (2.4%), right hepatic vein thrombosis in 1 patient (2.4%), pulmonary thromboembolism in 2 patients (4.8%), duodenal inflammation in 1 patient (2.4%), bowel ileus in 4 patients (9.6%), and bowel obstruction in 1 patient (2.4%).

Conclusion Complications after ERCP can cause significant morbidity and mortality if not diagnosed early and treated appropriately. Familiarity with normal findings post-ERCP and knowledge of the imaging appearance of these complications are vital in the early management of these conditions.

Keywords

Imaging - post-ERCP complication - retrospective study


Publication History

Article published online:
23 February 2024

© 2024. Indian Radiological Association. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India

 

  • References

  • 1 Ahmed M, Kanotra R, Savani GT. et al. Utilization trends in inpatient endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP): a cross-sectional US experience. Endosc Int Open 2017; 5 (04) E261-E271
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Meseeha M, Attia M. Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography. Treasure Island, FL: StatPearls Publishing; 2022
    Google Scholar
  • 3 Talukdar R. Complications of ERCP. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol 2016; 30 (05) 793-805
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Kochar B, Akshintala VS, Afghani E. et al. Incidence, severity, and mortality of post-ERCP pancreatitis: a systematic review by using randomized, controlled trials. Gastrointest Endosc 2015; 81 (01) 143-149.e9
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Silviera ML, Seamon MJ, Porshinsky B. et al. Complications related to endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: a comprehensive clinical review. J Gastrointestin Liver Dis 2009; 18 (01) 73-82
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Kapral C, Duller C, Wewalka F, Kerstan E, Vogel W, Schreiber F. Case volume and outcome of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: results of a nationwide Austrian benchmarking project. Endoscopy 2008; 40 (08) 625-630
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Stapfer M, Selby RR, Stain SC. et al. Management of duodenal perforation after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and sphincterotomy. Ann Surg 2000; 232 (02) 191-198
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Kwon CI, Song SH, Hahm KB, Ko KH. Unusual complications related to endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and its endoscopic treatment. Clin Endosc 2013; 46 (03) 251-259
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Kozarek RA. The future of ERCP. Endosc Int Open 2017; 5 (04) E272-E274
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Anderson MA, Fisher L, Jain R. et al; ASGE Standards of Practice Committee. Complications of ERCP. Gastrointest Endosc 2012; 75 (03) 467-473
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Andriulli A, Loperfido S, Napolitano G. et al. Incidence rates of post-ERCP complications: a systematic survey of prospective studies. Am J Gastroenterol 2007; 102 (08) 1781-1788
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Wax BN, Katz DS, Badler RL. et al. Complications of abdominal and pelvic procedures: computed tomographic diagnosis. Curr Probl Diagn Radiol 2006; 35 (05) 171-187
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Shah AP, Mourad MM, Bramhall SR. Acute pancreatitis: current perspectives on diagnosis and management. J Inflamm Res 2018; 11: 77-85
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Thoeni RF. The revised Atlanta classification of acute pancreatitis: its importance for the radiologist and its effect on treatment. Radiology 2012; 262 (03) 751-764
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Masci E, Mariani A, Curioni S, Testoni PA. Risk factors for pancreatitis following endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: a meta-analysis. Endoscopy 2003; 35 (10) 830-834
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Zaheer A, Singh VK, Qureshi RO, Fishman EK. The revised Atlanta classification for acute pancreatitis: updates in imaging terminology and guidelines. Abdom Imaging 2013; 38 (01) 125-136
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Shyu JY, Sainani NI, Sahni VA. et al. Necrotizing pancreatitis: diagnosis, imaging, and intervention. Radiographics 2014; 34 (05) 1218-1239
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Bollen TL, Singh VK, Maurer R. et al. Comparative evaluation of the modified CT severity index and CT severity index in assessing severity of acute pancreatitis. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2011; 197 (02) 386-392
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Woods RW, Akshintala VS, Singh VK. et al. CT severity of post-ERCP pancreatitis: results from a single tertiary medical center. Abdom Imaging 2014; 39 (06) 1162-1168
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Cotton PB, Garrow DA, Gallagher J, Romagnuolo J. Risk factors for complications after ERCP: a multivariate analysis of 11,497 procedures over 12 years. Gastrointest Endosc 2009; 70 (01) 80-88
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Cho KB. The management of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography-related duodenal perforation. Clin Endosc 2014; 47 (04) 341-345
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Avgerinos DV, Llaguna OH, Lo AY, Voli J, Leitman IM. Management of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: related duodenal perforations. Surg Endosc 2009; 23 (04) 833-838
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Morgan KA, Fontenot BB, Ruddy JM, Mickey S, Adams DB. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography gut perforations: when to wait! When to operate!. Am Surg 2009; 75 (06) 477-483 , discussion 483–484
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Colton JB, Curran CC. Quality indicators, including complications, of ERCP in a community setting: a prospective study. Gastrointest Endosc 2009; 70 (03) 457-467
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Ismail S, Kylänpää L, Mustonen H. et al. Risk factors for complications of ERCP in primary sclerosing cholangitis. Endoscopy 2012; 44 (12) 1133-1138
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Catalano OA, Sahani DV, Forcione DG. et al. Biliary infections: spectrum of imaging findings and management. Radiographics 2009; 29 (07) 2059-2080
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Eun HW, Kim JH, Hong SS, Kim YJ. Assessment of acute cholangitis by MR imaging. Eur J Radiol 2012; 81 (10) 2476-2480
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Cao J, Peng C, Ding X. et al. Risk factors for post-ERCP cholecystitis: a single-center retrospective study. BMC Gastroenterol 2018; 18 (01) 128
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Chawla A, Bosco JI, Lim TC, Srinivasan S, Teh HS, Shenoy JN. Imaging of acute cholecystitis and cholecystitis-associated complications in the emergency setting. Singapore Med J 2015; 56 (08) 438-443 , quiz 444
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Catalano O, De Bellis M, Sandomenico F, de Lutio di Castelguidone E, Delrio P, Petrillo A. Complications of biliary and gastrointestinal stents: MDCT of the cancer patient. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2012; 199 (02) W187-W196
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 El Zein MH, Kumbhari V, Tieu A. et al. Duodenal perforation as a consequence of biliary stent migration can occur regardless of stent type or duration. Endoscopy 2014; 46 (Suppl 1 UCTN): E281-E282
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Thomas S, Patel RP, Oto A. Resolution of pneumobilia as a predictor of biliary stent occlusion. Clin Imaging 2015; 39 (04) 650-653
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 van Boeckel PG, Vleggaar FP, Siersema PD. Plastic or metal stents for benign extrahepatic biliary strictures: a systematic review. BMC Gastroenterol 2009; 9: 96
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Freeman ML, Nelson DB, Sherman S. et al. Complications of endoscopic biliary sphincterotomy. N Engl J Med 1996; 335 (13) 909-918
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Lee SH, Hong SG, Lee KY. et al. Delayed severe hemobilia after endoscopic biliary plastic stent insertion. Clin Endosc 2016; 49 (03) 303-307
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 So YH, Choi YH, Chung JW, Jae HJ, Song SY, Park JH. Selective embolization for post-endoscopic sphincterotomy bleeding: technical aspects and clinical efficacy. Korean J Radiol 2012; 13 (01) 73-81
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Kalaitzakis E, Stern N, Sturgess R. Portal vein cannulation: an uncommon complication of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. World J Gastroenterol 2011; 17 (46) 5131-5132
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Chavalitdhamrong D, Donepudi S, Pu L, Draganov PV. Uncommon and rarely reported adverse events of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Dig Endosc 2014; 26 (01) 15-22
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Yang XM, Hu B. Endoscopic sphincterotomy plus large-balloon dilation vs endoscopic sphincterotomy for choledocholithiasis: a meta-analysis. World J Gastroenterol 2013; 19 (48) 9453-9460
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar