SP4.1 - Incidence of recurrent bile duct stones following 6140 laparoscopic cholecystectomies and bile duct explorations: management and evaluation of risk factors

Résumé fourni par la source

Abstract Aim To evaluate the rate of bile duct stone recurrence and possible risk factors in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) and bile duct exploration (LCBDE) on a unit adopting routine cholangiography and LCBDE. Methods A prospective database of LC and LCBDE with confirmed ductal clearance spanning 30 years was reviewed. Those returning with clinical and laboratory suspicion of recurrence were included whether or not MRCP confirmation was obtained or intervention required. Apart from annual follow up electronic records were examined in 2020 and 2023 to capture unreported episodes. Results 1447 patients underwent LCBDE. 56 (3.8%) had suspected recurrence after a mean of 36.6 months (5-144). Mean age was 67.6 years and 57.1% were females. 12 (21.4%) settled on conservative management, including Glucagon administration, and MRCP was negative. 44 patients (78.6%) had 59 confirmed recurrence episodes; 53 needing 63 ERCPs and 6 settling conservatively. 12/44 (21.4%) had repeat recurrences. Only one biliary-enteric anastomosis was required. Only 11 of 4693 LC (0.23%) had recurrent stones (5 repeatedly) after a median interval of 30 months (5-120). 19 recurrence episodes occurred during which 13 settled spontaneously and 6 needed 9 ERCPs. In spite of average rates of ERCP morbidity no biliary related deaths resulted from stone recurrence. Compared to the rest of LCBDEs those with recurrence were more male, older, with more dilated CBD on USS & required more choledochotomies for larger stones. Conclusions CBDS recurrence occurs in 3.8% after LCBDE with 3% confirmed and requiring intervention, significantly lower than after sphincterotomy. Glucagon may help small stones pass. 21.4% have repeat recurrences justifying stone dissolution agents. Identifying recurrence risk factors require further studies.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.