Download PDF
Endoscopy 2021; 53(02): 110-122
DOI: 10.1055/a-1200-8064
Systematic review

Efficacy and safety of peroral cholangioscopy with intraductal lithotripsy for difficult biliary stones: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Thomas R. McCarty
1   Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Endoscopy, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
2   Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
,
Rishabh Gulati
3   Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA
,
Tarun Rustagi
3   Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background Peroral cholangioscopy with intraductal lithotripsy facilitates optically guided stone fragmentation of difficult biliary stones refractory to conventional endoscopic therapy. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of peroral cholangioscopy with intraductal lithotripsy for difficult biliary stones.

Methods Searches of PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases were performed in accordance with PRISMA and MOOSE guidelines. Measured outcomes included overall fragmentation success, single-session fragmentation and duct clearance, and rate of adverse events. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses were performed based upon cholangioscopy technique and type of lithotripsy (laser versus electrohydraulic). Heterogeneity was assessed with I 2 statistics. Publication bias was ascertained by funnel plot and Egger regression testing.

Results 35 studies were included with 1762 participants (43.4 % men; mean age 61.5 [standard deviation (SD) 11.0]). Prior cholecystectomy had been performed in 37 % of patients, with a mean number of 1.6 (SD 0.5) ERCPs performed prior to lithotripsy. Mean stone size was 1.8 (SD 0.3) cm. Peroral cholangioscopy with intraductal lithotripsy achieved an overall stone fragmentation success of 91.2 % (95 %CI 88.1 % – 93.6 %; I 2 = 63.2 %) with an average of 1.3 [SD 0.6] lithotripsy sessions performed. Complete single-session fragmentation success was 76.9 % (95 %CI 71.6 % – 81.4 %; I 2 = 74.3 %). The adverse events rate was 8.9 % (95 %CI 6.5 % – 12.2 %; I 2 = 60.6 %). Mean procedure time for peroral cholangioscopy was 67.1 (SD 21.4) minutes. There was no difference in overall fragmentation rate or adverse events; however, laser lithotripsy was associated with a higher single-session fragmentation rate and shorter procedure time compared with electrohydraulic lithotripsy.

Conclusions Peroral cholangioscopy with intraductal lithotripsy appears to be a relatively safe and effective modality for difficult biliary stones.

Supplementary material



Publication History

Received: 24 December 2019

Accepted: 16 June 2020

Accepted Manuscript online:
16 June 2020

Article published online:
05 October 2020

© 2020. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 

  • References

  • 1 Ko CW, Lee SP. Epidemiology and natural history of common bile duct stones and prediction of disease. Gastrointest Endosc 2002; 56: S165-S169
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Moller M, Gustafsson U, Rasmussen F. et al. Natural course vs interventions to clear common bile duct stones: data from the Swedish Registry for Gallstone Surgery and Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography (GallRiks). JAMA Surg 2014; 149: 1008-1013
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Murison MS, Gartell PC, McGinn FP. Does selective peroperative cholangiography result in missed common bile duct stones?. J R Coll Surg Edinb 1993; 38: 220-224
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Cotton PB. Non-operative removal of bile duct stones by duodenoscopic sphincterotomy. Br J Surg 1980; 67: 1-5
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Trikudanathan G, Navaneethan U, Parsi MA. Endoscopic management of difficult common bile duct stones. World J Gastroenterol 2013; 19: 165-173
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Stromberg C, Nilsson M. Nationwide study of the treatment of common bile duct stones in Sweden between 1965 and 2009. Br J Surg 2011; 98: 1766-1774
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Manes G, Paspatis G, Aabakken L. et al. Endoscopic management of common bile duct stones: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) guideline. Endoscopy 2019; 51: 472-491
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Nakajima M, Akasaka Y, Fukumoto K. et al. Peroral cholangiopancreatosocopy (PCPS) under duodenoscopic guidance. Am J Gastroenterol 1976; 66: 241-247
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Urakami Y, Seifert E, Butke H. Peroral direct cholangioscopy (PDCS) using routine straight-view endoscope: first report. Endoscopy 1977; 9: 27-30
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J. et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. Ann Int Med 2009; 151: W65-W94
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC. et al. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group. JAMA 2000; 283: 2008-2012
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Controlled Clin Trials 1986; 7: 177-188
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Stuart A, Ord JK. Kendall’s Advanced Theory of Statistics. 6th edn. London: Edward Arnold; 1994
    Google Scholar
  • 15 Riley RD, Higgins JP, Deeks JJ. Interpretation of random effects meta-analyses. BMJ 2011; 342: d549
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ. et al. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 2003; 327: 557-560
    Google Scholar
  • 17 Overton RC. A comparison of fixed-effects and mixed (random-effects) models for meta-analysis tests of moderator variable effects. Psychol Methods 1998; 3: 354-379
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Wells G, Shea B, O’Connell D. et al. The Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analysis. Available at (Accessed 24 April 2019): http: //www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J. et al. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Version 6. (updated July 2019). Accessed at (7 August 2020): http://www.training.cochrane.org/handbook
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Borenstein M, Higgins JP, Hedges LV. et al. Basics of meta-analysis: I(2) is not an absolute measure of heterogeneity. Res Synth Methods 2017; 8: 5-18
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Borenstein M, Hedges LV, Higgins JP. et al. Introduction to meta-analysis. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons; 2011
    Google Scholar
  • 22 Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M. et al. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ 1997; 315: 629-634
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Easterbrook PJ, Berlin JA, Gopalan R. et al. Publication bias in clinical research. Lancet 1991; 337: 867-872
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Duval S, Tweedie R. Trim and fill: a simple funnel-plot–based method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in metaanalysis. Biometrics 2000; 56: 455-463
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Karagyozov P, Boeva I, Tishkov I. Role of digital single-operator cholangioscopy in the diagnosis and treatment of biliary disorders. World J Gastrointest Endosc 2019; 11: 31-40
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Ramchandani M, Reddy DN, Lakhtakia S. et al. Per oral cholangiopancreatoscopy in pancreatico biliary diseases--expert consensus statements. World J Gastroenterol 2015; 21: 4722-4734
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Awadallah NS, Chen YK, Piraka C. et al. Is there a role for cholangioscopy in patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis?. Am J Gastroenterol 2006; 101: 284-291
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Xu MM, Kahaleh M. Recent developments in choledochoscopy: technical and clinical advances. Clin Exp Gastroenterol 2016; 9: 119-124
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Parsi MA. Direct peroral cholangioscopy. World J Gastrointest Endosc 2014; 6: 1-5
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Komanduri S, Thosani N, Abu Dayyeh BK. et al. Cholangiopancreatoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2016; 84: 209-221
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Sievert Jr. CE, Silvis SE. Evaluation of electrohydraulic lithotripsy as a means of gallstone fragmentation in a canine model. Gastrointest Endosc 1987; 33: 233-235
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Hochberger J, Gruber E, Wirtz P. et al. Lithotripsy of gallstones by means of a quality-switched giant-pulse neodymium: yttrium-aluminum-garnet laser. Basic in vitro studies using a highly flexible fiber system. Gastroenterology 1991; 101: 1391-1398
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Korrapati P, Ciolino J, Wani S. et al. The efficacy of peroral cholangioscopy for difficult bile duct stones and indeterminate strictures: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Endosc Int Open 2016; 4: E263-E275
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Veld JV, van Huijgevoort NCM, Boermeester MA. et al. A systematic review of advanced endoscopy-assisted lithotripsy for retained biliary tract stones: laser, electrohydraulic or extracorporeal shock wave. Endoscopy 2018; 50: 896-909
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar