MRCP is Not a Cost-Effective Strategy in the Management of Silent Common Bile Duct Stones

Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery

Volumn 17, Issue 5, 2013, Pages 863-871

  Epelboym, Irene ^a   Winner, Megan ^a   Allendorf, John D ^a  

^a Columbia University ^*  (United States)

Author keywords

Common bile duct stones; Cost effectiveness; Decision analysis modeling; MRCP

Indexed keywords

EID: 84876115087     PISSN: 1091255X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11605-013-2179-4     Document Type: Review

References (47)

1. Buddingh KT, Nieuwenhuijs VB, van Buuren L, et al. Intraoperative assessment of biliary anatomy for prevention of bile duct injury: a review of current and future patient safety interventions. Surg Endosc. 2011; 25: 2449-2461.
2. Hall MJ, Owings MF. 2000 national hospital discharge survey. Adv Data. 2002: 1-18.
3. Ledro-Cano D. Suspected choledocholithiasis: endoscopic ultrasound or magnetic resonance cholangio-pancreatography? A systematic review. European Journal of Gastroenterology & Hepatology. 2007; 19: 1007-1011.
4. Scaffidi MG, Luigiano C, Consolo P, et al. Magnetic resonance cholangio-pancreatography versus endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography in the diagnosis of common bile duct stones: a prospective comparative study. Minerva Medica. 2009; 100: 341-348.
5. Rogers SJ, Cello JP, Horn JK, et al. Prospective randomized trial of LC + LCBDE vs ERCP/S + LC for common bile duct stone disease. Arch Surg. 2010; 145: 28-33.
6. Kaltenthaler EC, Walters SJ, Chilcott J, et al. MRCP compared to diagnostic ERCP for diagnosis when biliary obstruction is suspected: a systematic review. BMC Medical Imaging. 2006; 6: 9.
7. Martin DJ, Vernon DR, Toouli J. Surgical versus endoscopic treatment of bile duct stones. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2006, CD003327.
8. Howard K, Lord SJ, Speer A, et al. Value of magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography in the diagnosis of biliary abnormalities in postcholecystectomy patients: a probabilistic cost-effectiveness analysis of diagnostic strategies. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2006; 22: 109-118.
9. Vergel YB, Chilcott J, Kaltenthaler E, et al. Economic evaluation of MR cholangiopancreatography compared to diagnostic ERCP for the investigation of biliary tree obstruction. Int J Surg. 2006; 4: 12-19.
10. Brown LM, Rogers SJ, Cello JP, et al. Cost-effective treatment of patients with symptomatic cholelithiasis and possible common bile duct stones. Journal of the American College of Surgeons. 2011; 212: 1049-1060 e1041-1047.
11. Poulose BK, Speroff T, Holzman MD. Optimizing choledocholithiasis management: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Arch Surg. 2007; 142: 43-48; discussion 49.
12. Parra-Membrives P, Diaz-Gomez D, Vilegas-Portero R, et al. Appropriate management of common bile duct stones: a RAND Corporation/UCLA Appropriateness Method statistical analysis. Surgical Endoscopy. 2010; 24: 1187-1194.
13. Diagnosis and treatment of common bile duct stones (CBDS). Results of a consensus development conference. Scientific Committee of the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery (E. A. E. S.). Surgical Endoscopy. 1998; 12: 856-864.
14. Tranter SE, Thompson MH. Spontaneous passage of bile duct stones: frequency of occurrence and relation to clinical presentation. Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England. 2003; 85: 174-177.
15. Collins C, Maguire D, Ireland A, et al. A prospective study of common bile duct calculi in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy: natural history of choledocholithiasis revisited. Annals of Surgery. 2004; 239: 28-33.
16. Lefemine V, Morgan RJ. Spontaneous passage of common bile duct stones in jaundiced patients. Hepatobiliary & Pancreatic Diseases International: HBPD INT. 2011; 10: 209-213.
17. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Overview of the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule Search. Available from: http://www. cms. gov/apps/physician-fee-schedule/overview. aspx. Accessed on January 2012.
18. Tucker JJ, Yanagawa F, Grim R, et al. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy is safe but underused in the elderly. The American Surgeon. 2011; 77: 1014-1020.
19. Dolan JP, Diggs BS, Sheppard BC, Hunter JG. The national mortality burden and significant factors associated with open and laparoscopic cholecystectomy: 1997-2006. Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery: official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract. 2009; 13: 2292-2301.
20. Murphy MM, Shah SA, Simons JP, et al. Predicting major complications after laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a simple risk score. Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery: official Journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract. 2009; 13: 1929-1936.
21. Akyurek N, Salman B, Irkorucu O, et al. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy in patients with previous abdominal surgery. JSLS: Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons/Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons. 2005; 9: 178-183.
22. Keus F, Gooszen HG, van Laarhoven CJ. Open, small-incision, or laparoscopic cholecystectomy for patients with symptomatic cholecystolithiasis. An overview of Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group reviews. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2010, CD008318.
23. Lee KT, Chang WT, Huang MC, Chiu HC. Influence of surgeon volume on clinical and economic outcomes of laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Digestive Surgery. 2004; 21: 406-412.
24. Videhult P, Sandblom G, Rasmussen IC. How reliable is intraoperative cholangiography as a method for detecting common bile duct stones? A prospective population-based study on 1171 patients. Surgical Endoscopy. 2009; 23: 304-312.
25. Nassar AH, El Shallaly G, Hamouda AH. Optimising laparoscopic cholangiography time using a simple cannulation technique. Surgical Endoscopy. 2009; 23: 513-517.
26. Petelin JB. Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration. Surgical Endoscopy. 2003; 17: 1705-1715.
27. Nickkholgh A, Soltaniyekta S, Kalbasi H. Routine versus selective intraoperative cholangiography during laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a survey of 2, 130 patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surgical Endoscopy. 2006; 20: 868-874.
28. Kelly MD. Results of laparoscopic bile duct exploration via choledochotomy. ANZ Journal of Surgery. 2010; 80: 694-698.
29. Chiarugi M, Galatioto C, Decanini L, et al. Laparoscopic transcystic exploration for single-stage management of common duct stones and acute cholecystitis. Surgical Endoscopy. 2012; 26: 124-129.
30. Lyass S, Phillips EH. Laparoscopic transcystic duct common bile duct exploration. Surgical Endoscopy. 2006; 20 Suppl 2: S441-445.
31. Cotton PB, Garrow DA, Gallagher J, Romagnuolo J. Risk factors for complications after ERCP: a multivariate analysis of 11, 497 procedures over 12 years. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. 2009; 70: 80-88.
32. Chatterjee S, Rees C, Dwarakanath AD, et al. Endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography practice in district general hospitals in North East England: a Northern Regional Endoscopy Group (NREG) study. The Journal of the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh. 2011; 41: 109-113.
33. De Lisi S, Leandro G, Buscarini E. Endoscopic ultrasonography versus endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in acute biliary pancreatitis: a systematic review. European Journal of Gastroenterology & Hepatology. 2011; 23: 367-374.
34. Petrov MS, Savides TJ. Systematic review of endoscopic ultrasonography versus endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography for suspected choledocholithiasis. The British Journal of Surgery. 2009; 96: 967-974.
35. Schreurs WH, Juttmann JR, Stuifbergen WN, et al. Management of common bile duct stones: selective endoscopic retrograde cholangiography and endoscopic sphincterotomy: short- and long-term results. Surgical Endoscopy. 2002; 16: 1068-1072.
36. Bailey AA, Bourke MJ, Williams SJ, et al. A prospective randomized trial of cannulation technique in ERCP: effects on technical success and post-ERCP pancreatitis. Endoscopy. 2008; 40: 296-301.
37. Nakai Y, Isayama H, Tsujino T, et al. Impact of introduction of wire-guided cannulation in therapeutic biliary endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology. 2011; 26: 1552-1558.
38. Mehta PP, Sanaka MR, Parsi MA, et al. Effect of the time of day on the success and adverse events of ERCP. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. 2011; 74: 303-308.
39. Trifan A, Sfarti C, Cretu M, et al. Guide-wire versus conventional contrast cannulation of the common bile duct for the prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis in patients with choledocholithiasis. Journal of Gastrointestinal and Liver Diseases: JGLD. 2011; 20: 149-152.
40. Katsinelos P, Kountouras J, Paroutoglou G, et al. A comparative study of 10-Fr vs. 7-Fr straight plastic stents in the treatment of postcholecystectomy bile leak. Surgical Endoscopy. 2008; 22: 101-106.
41. Artifon EL, Kumar A, Eloubeidi MA, et al. Prospective randomized trial of EUS versus ERCP-guided common bile duct stone removal: an interim report (with video). Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. 2009; 69: 238-243.
42. Heo JH, Kang DH, Jung HJ, et al. Endoscopic sphincterotomy plus large-balloon dilation versus endoscopic sphincterotomy for removal of bile-duct stones. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. 2007; 66: 720-726; quiz 768, 771.
43. Stabuc B, Drobne D, Ferkolj I, et al. Acute biliary pancreatitis: detection of common bile duct stones with endoscopic ultrasound. European Journal of Gastroenterology & Hepatology. 2008; 20: 1171-1175.
44. Ainsworth AP, Rafaelsen SR, Wamberg PA, et al. Cost-effectiveness of endoscopic ultrasonography, magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in patients suspected of pancreaticobiliary disease. Scandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology. 2004; 39: 579-583.
45. Hekimoglu K, Ustundag Y, Dusak A, et al. MRCP vs. ERCP in the evaluation of biliary pathologies: review of current literature. Journal of Digestive Diseases. 2008; 9: 162-169.
46. Rahman R, Ju J, Shamma's J, et al. Correlation between MRCP and ERCP findings at a tertiary care hospital. The West Virginia Medical Journal. 2010; 106: 14-19.
47. Verma D, Kapadia A, Eisen GM, Adler DG. EUS vs MRCP for detection of choledocholithiasis. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. 2006; 64: 248-254.