Aim To present our experience with a diagnostic ability of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) and magnetic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) in cases of choledocholithiasis verified by endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Methods This retrospective study was conducted after a collection of data involving 58 suspected choledocholithiasis patients who underwent ERCP from January 2013 to December 2015. Patients who were diagnosed with choledocholithiasis on the basis of clinical symptoms and radiological findings and who underwent ERCP were included in this study. The first group (29 patients) underwent EUS, and the second group (29 patients) underwent MRCP. The ERCP was performed in both groups. Sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic accuracy of EUS and MRCP were determined by comparing them with ERCP, which was considered to be a gold standard. Results Gender representation was in favour of males, 58:42%. The mean age was 55.5 years. In the group 1 (EUS) 22 patients were found to have choledocholithiasis using ERCP. The EUS stone detection rate was 88%. Endoscopic ultrasound showed sensitivity (97%), specificity (67%) and accuracy (88%), positive predictive value (PPV) of 88%, negative predictive value (NPV) of 80%. In the group 2 (MRCP) 16 patients were found to have choledocholithiasis by ERCP. MRCP sensitivity was 81%, specificity 40%, PPV of 74%, NPV of 50%. Conclusion The EUS was a superior non-invasive tool in comparison with MRCP for detecting choledocholithiasis, which was confirmed using ERCP.
Magalhaes J, Rosa B, Cotter J. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography for suspected choledocholithiasis: from guidelines to clinical practice. World J Gastrointest Endosc. 2015;128–34.
2.
Narváez-Rivera R, González-González J, Monreal-Robles R, García-Compean D, Pazdelgadillo J, Garza-Galindo A, et al. Accuracy of ASGE criteria for the prediction of choledocholithiasis. Rev Esp Enferm Dig. 2016;309–14.
3.
Pickuth D, Spielmann R. Detection of choledocholithiasis: comparison of unenhanced spiral CT, US, and ERCP. Hepatogastroenterology. 2000;1514–7.
4.
The role of endoscopy in the evaluation of suspected choledocholithiasis. Gastrointest Endosc. 2010;1–9.
5.
Chandrasekhara M, Khashab M, Muthusamy V, Acosta R, Agrawal D, Bruining D, et al. Adverse events associated with ERCP -ASGE guideline. Gastrointest Endosc. 2017;32–47.
6.
Canena J, Liberato M, Horta D, Romão C, Coutinho P. Short-term stenting using fully covered selfexpandable metal stents for the treatment of refractory biliary leaks, postsphincterotomy bleeding and perforations. Surg Endosc. 2013;313–24.
7.
Adams M, Hosmer A, Wamsteker E, Wamsteker E, Andreson M, Elta G. Predicting the likelihood of a persistent bile duct stone in patients with suspected choledocholithiasis: accuracy of existing guidelines and the impact of laboratory trends. Gastrointest Endosc. 2015;88–93.
8.
Sethi S, Wang F, Korson A, Krishnan S, Berzin T, Chuttani R. Prospective assessment of consensus criteria for evaluation of patients with suspected choledocholithiasis. Dig Endosc. 2016;75–82.
9.
Becker C, Grossholz M, Becker M, Mentha G, De Peyer R, Terrier F. Choledocholithiasis and bile duct stenosis: Diagnostic accuracy of MR holangiopancreatography. Radiology. 1997;523–30.
10.
Hjartarson J, Hannesson P, Sverrisson I, Blöndal S, Ívarsson B, Björnsson E. The value of magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography for the exclusion of choledocholithiasis. Scand J Gastroenterol. 2016;1249–56.
11.
Singhvi G, Ampara R, Baum J, Gumaste V. ASGE guidelines result in cost-saving in the management of choledocholithiasis. Ann Gastroenterol. 2016;85–9.
12.
Choledocholithiasis is often missed on US because it has a relatively low sensitivity (15%-40%), although, its sensitivity is better for detecting CBD dilatation. (20).
13.
The MRCP and EUS are other reliable noninvasive procedures used to evaluate choledocholithiasis and have few risks and complications. The ERCP was still considered as a golden standard. The ideal algorithm for choledocholithiasis diagnostic protocol is still an interest of further research. In conclusion, EUS is a superior noninvasive tool in comparison with MRCP for detecting choledocholithiasis, which was confirmed using ERCP. FUNDING No specific funding was received for this study.
14.
Tranter S, Thompson M. Spontaneous passage of bile duct stones: frequency of occurrence and relation to clinical presentation. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2003;174–7.
15.
Suarez A, Labarre N, Cotton P, Payne K, Coté G, Elmunzer B. An assessment of existing risk stratification guidelines for the evaluation of patients with suspected choledocholithiasis. Surg Endosc. 2016;4613–8.
16.
Videhult P, Sandblom G, Rudberg C, Rasmussen I. Are liver function tests, pancreatitis and cholecystitis predictors of common bile duct stones? Results of a prospective, population-based cohort study of 1,171 patients undergoing cholecystectomy. HBP (Oxford). 2011;519–27.
17.
Canena J. Once upon a time a guideline was used for the evaluation of suspected choledocholithiasis: a fairy tale or a nightmare? GE Port J Gastroenterol. 2018;6–9.
18.
Vaynshtein J, Sabbag G, Pinsk I, Rahmani I, Reshef A. Predictors for choledocholitiasis in patients undergoing endoscopic ultrasound. Scand J Gastroenterol. 2018;335–9.
19.
Giljaca V, Gurusamy K, Takwoingi Y, Higgie D, Poropat G, Štimac D, et al. Endoscopic ultrasound versus magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography for common bile duct stones. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;(2).
20.
Prachayakul V, Aswakul P, Bhunthumkomol P, Deesomsak M. Diagnostic yield of endoscopic ultrasonography in patients with intermediate or high likelihood of choledocholithiasis: a retrospective study from one university-based endoscopy center. BMC Gastroenterol. 2014;165.
21.
Gouveia C, Loureiro R, Ferreira R, Ferreira O, Santos A, Santos A, et al. Performance of the choledocholithiasis diagnostic score in patients with acute cholecystitis. GE Port J Gastroenterol. 2018;24–9.
22.
Kondo S, Isayama H, Akahane M, Toda N, Sasahira N, Nakai Y, et al. Detection of common bile duct stones: comparison between endoscopic ultrasonography, magnetic resonance cholangiography, and helical-computedtomographic cholangiography. Eur J Radiol. 2005;271–5.
The statements, opinions and data contained in the journal are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publisher and the editor(s). We stay neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
,
