Saudi Journal of Gastroenterology
Home About us Instructions Submission Subscribe Advertise Contact Login    Print this page  Email this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size 
Users Online: 160 


 
ARTICLES Table of Contents   
Year : 1996  |  Volume : 2  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 29-38
Management of gallstones


Department of Medicine, College of Medicine, King Saud University, Riyadh 11461, Saudi Arabia

Click here for correspondence address and email
 

   Abstract 

Asymptomatic patients with gallbladder stones rarely develop complications and therefore do not require treatment; in contrary, symptomatic patients should he treated. Nowadays, several approaches are available to treat gallbladder and ductal stones using surgical techniques. chemical dissolvents, frag­mentation, endoscopic and percutancous approaches. The choice of approach is influenced by the site, size and chemical composition of stone, as well as the age, general condition and desire of patient. Surgi­cal approaches are considered as the primary method of treatment. Nonsurgical treatment is considered in patients at high risk and patients unwilling to undergo surgery. The main concern of non-surgical treat­ment is the high recurrence rate, especially after dissolution.

How to cite this article:
Al Mofleh IA. Management of gallstones. Saudi J Gastroenterol 1996;2:29-38

How to cite this URL:
Al Mofleh IA. Management of gallstones. Saudi J Gastroenterol [serial online] 1996 [cited 2020 Oct 23];2:29-38. Available from: https://www.saudijgastro.com/text.asp?1996/2/1/29/34038


Until recently, open cholecystectomy and bile duct exploration have been the standard treat­ment for stones of the gallbladder and associated bile duct stones. The introduction of new mod­alities for treatment of gallbladder and bile duct stones including laparoscopic cholecystectomy, endoscopic techniques, extra-and intra-corporeal lithotripsy and chemical, oral or contact dissolu­tion, examplify a great progress to gallstones man­agement. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy has gained wide popularity and has become the gold standard treatment for gallstones [1],[2] . Endos­copic sphincterotomy is the method of choice for retained ductal stones, acute cholangitis, acute biliary pancreatitis, and ductal stones in high risk patients with a high clearance rate of up to 90%.

Combination of endoscopic sphincterotomy with lithotripsy helps to clear majority of the remaining stones [3] . Asymptomatic stones do not require treatment. Management of symptomatic stones is summarized in [Figure - 1] and [Table - 1].


   Operative Approaches Top


Surgery is still the primary treatment for gallbladder stones, and other nonsurgical techniques provide alternative methods [4] .

Open cholecystectomy (OC)

Till few years back, OC was the choice available for treatment of gallbladder stones. It has effi­ciently been performed for over one century to manage gallstone disease with low mortality rates ranging from 0.1-1 % [5],[6] . The mortality increases in patients over 70 years of age and in patients with septic complications to 2.3 and 6.2%, respectively. The increase in mortality rate in the elderly has usually been due to cardiac and pulmonary conditions [5] .

Mini-cholecystectomy (MC)

Is a modified OC with small, four to six cms transverse incision, which has safely been per­formed with a short mean hospital stay of 1.5 days [7] , and faster return to work after an average of 18.6 days [8] . Postsurgical anesthesia requirement has been less, compared to standard OC [8] .

Laparosocopic cholecystectomy (LC)

The development of LC in 1987-88 significantly influenced the gallstone management, and in a short time, it has become the gold standard method [9] . The indications for cholecystectomy have not been altered with the introduction of LC [10] . In contrary, LC has recently been safely per­formed in conditions previously considered as contraindications for it. including complicated gallstone disease [11] , sickle cell disease [12] , pre­gnancy [13] and obesity [14] . The intolerance of peritoneal insufflation in cardiac and respiratory diseases represent the only contraindication for LC [15] . It has been safe with rates of 0-02 %, 2­5% and 3-6% for mortality, conversion to OC and postoperative complications, respectively [9] .

Biliary trauma at a rate of 0.2-1.3% has been the major complication of LC [16],[17] . Biliary trauma has been related to anatomical and techni­cal problems. It may be reduced, but not pre­vented by performing intraoperative cholangiog­raphy and laparoscopic ultrasonography [10] . Also needle-and trocar-induced large vessels injuries have been accompanied with mortality at a rate of (0.05%) 8.8% [18] . Further important complications contributing to increased mortality have included instrumentation-related gastroin­testinal injuries with a mortality rate of 4.6% [18] .

The main advantages of LC have been: minimal wound pain, short hospital stay (mean. two days), early return to work (within a week) and cosmetic aspects [19] .

Although transcystic and choledochostomy approaches have been performed to remove duc­tal stones, laparoscopic techniques have not yet finally solved this problem [9] .

Minimally-invasive procedures

Less invasive procedures such as percutaneous cholecystostomy have the advantage of being per­formed under local anesthesia for treatment of acute cholecystitis, gallbladder empyema and per­forated gallbladder with a local abscess especially, in the elderly and high risk patients [20] .

Cholecystolithotomy is another less invasive procedure that can he performed using percutan­eous transhepatic, transperitoneal and laparos­copic access. It has been successfully performed in 89 out of 100 patients presented with acute gallstone complication and in high risk patients. Complications in the form of cholangitis and sub­hepatic biliary collection have occurred in 13% of patients [8] .


   Endoscopic Approach Top


Since the introduction of endoscopic approach of common bile duct stones over two decades ago, this method has become the most widely-accepted nonsurgical diagnostic and therapeutic approach of ductal stones. It has been considered as the treatment of choice in postcholecystectomy­retained bile duct stones with an effective stone clearance in up to 90% of patients [21] . Further­more, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopan­creatography (ERCP) with sphincterotomy has been the appropriate method in the elderly and high risk patients with ductal stones, as well as the emergency procedure for acute cholangitis or biliary pancreatitis [22]. In the small proportion (10%) of patients with failure to clear the bile duct by conventional means due to the large stone size, stone impaction or stricture, mechanical fragmen­tation is achieved in approximately 85% of these patients [23] . Nasobiliary intubation [24] and endoprosthesis [25] are effective and safe methods that reduce complications and avoid urgent surgery in patients with unsuccessful stone clearance. Long-term endoscopic stenting has been found to be an effective and safe alternative in the event of failure to clear stones in the frail and elderly patients [25] .

Cotton, et al referred to a recent prospective series of 1,921 patients treated with sphincterotomy to remove stones. The overall morbidity has been 5.8%, of which 0.6% were severe, with 0.2% mortality [10] . Pancreatitis has been the frequent direct procedure-related com­plication. Perforation and hemorrhage are rather less frequent [26] .

ERCP should be performed before LC, in patients with substantial suspicion of ductal stones and after LC in the presence of stones [10] .


   Lithotripsy Top


At present, a variety of lithotriptors have been used to fragment gallstones. These lithotriptors are used alone or in combination with endoscopic approaches or chemical dissolvents.

Mechanical lithotriptor (ML)

Compared to other forms, ML is a practical and cheap device that can easily be used in all endos­copy units performing ERCP and sphinctero­tomy. Over 85% successful fragmentation rates have been reported [23],[27] . The success rate of lithotripsy is in a reciprocal correlation with stone size as only 25% of stones larger than 2.5 cms in diameter have been successfully fragmented [28] . The success rate can be further improved by the use of larger and stronger baskets [27] . Mechani­cal lithotripsy is reliable and safe [23] . Therefore, it should be the method of choice for managing bile duct stones, that cannot be retrieved by con­ventional endoscopic techniques.

Laser lithotripsy (LL)

Fifteen years ago, Orii et al, in Japan reported the first fragmentation of bile duct stones using a continuous wave Neodymium YAG (CW Nd: YAG) laser through a percutaneous-transhepatic access [29] . The use of CW Nd: YAG for litho­tripsy is limited by its thermal injuries, induced by the continuous release of a high energy amount. This thermal damage has been reduced by the use of a flashlamp pulsed Nd: YAG Laser system which can be used under direct endoscopic vision or under radiological screening. To further reduce the thermal effect on the tissue, special baskets and balloons have been developed. In the first successful endoscopic retrograde Laser lithotomy of ductal stones in man, using a flashlamp pulsed Nd: YAG Laser, 1064, nm wavelength, eight of nine stones have been fragmented and in six, retrieved without complications [30] . The disad­vantage of the flashlamp pulsed Nd: YAG is reflected by the large stone fragments.

The development of the pulsed-dye and quality­switched Nd: YAG Lasers with reduced or absent thermal damage and the capability to fragment the stones in small particles, denotes further prog­ress towards efficacy and safety of Laser lithot­ripsy [30] . Coumarin- flashpumped pulsed-dye Laser with a wavelength of 504 nm has been used with a high efficacy and safety [31],[32],[33] . Complete bile duct clearance has been achieved in 33 of 35 patients [34] . A very high successful lithotripsy rate (97%) has been achieved by employing a new rhodamin-flashlamp pumped pulsed-dye Laser with 594 nm wavelength and automatic stone rec­ognition, which is safely used without optimal or even absent visualization. The Laser fiber diame­ter of 0.25 or 0.30 mm allows the use of endoscopic retrograde or percutaneous transhepatic access. Complications have occurred in nine percent in the form of mild cholangitis, that promptly responded to antibiotics [35] .

With the progress in Laser lithotripsy and the availability of efficient and safe Laser lithotrip­tors, more acceptance and application will be feas­ible, provided the cost problems will be solved.

Electrohydraulic lithotripsy (EHL)

This method has been first used to fragment uri­nary bladder stones and adapted in 1975. for lithotripsy of gallstones [36] . Electrohydraulic lithotripsy has been applied in adjunction with percutaneous and peroral fiberoptic endoscopes permitting visualization to minimize trauma to the common bile duct [37],[38] . A high lithotripsy suc­cess rate exceeding 95% of hepato- and choledocholithiasis has been reported [39] . Hemobilia has been encountered in 24% of patients undergoing transhepatic EHL [40] .

In comparison to other lithotriptors, EHL has not been widely used due to associated technical problems, thermal injuries and risk of perforation [27] .

Extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy (ESWL)

Ten years ago (1985), ESWL has been adapted for treatment of gallstones [41] . Nowadays, it has become an established technique for gall­bladder and ductal stone fragmentation in several countries. Symptomatic non-complicated gallstones in patients at risk for surgery or anes­thesia and in patients unwilling to undergo surgery are considered for ESWL [42],[43] . For successful fragmentation, patients undergoing ESWL should meet its selection criteria. The cystic duct should be patent and stones should be radiolu­cent, one to three with a maximal cumulative diameter of 30 mm [44] . In vitro studies to evaluate parameters determining efficacy of ESWL for gallstone fragmentation revealed that the number, the total volume of stones and to a lesser degree, their chemical composition are the major determinants of successful lithotripsy [45] . The fragment size is usually larger than two mm. Approximately 60% of patients have frag­ments ≤ 5 mm maximum diameter after the last ESWL session performed by electromagnetic sys­tem [46] ). Therefore, ESWL has been combined with bile acids to treat cholesterol stones of the gallbladder [41],[47] .

The 12-month stone free-rate after ESWL with adjuvant bile acid litholysis of single radiolucent stones up to 20 mm has been 68- 84%, [48],[49] 13-75% for single stones with 20-30 mm, diameter [50],[51] and 25-65% for multiple stones [48],[52] .

Three types of extracorporeal shock wave lithotriptors have been used. The electrohy­draulic, the piezoelectric and electromagnetic lithotriptors. The efficacy of these lithotriptors is comparable [43],[46] .

Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy has been associated with minor side effects in the form of local petechial bleeding, asymptomatic liver hematoma and transient hematuria [44] . Asymptomatic transient aminotransaminase ele­vation has been found in 20% and transient gallbladder wall edema in 4.3% of patients [46] . Other side effects have included: mild cholangitis, pancreatitis, hemobilia [53] and upper gastroin­testinal erosions [54] .

Combined ESWL and bile acids treatment has been considered as a good alternative for surgery. However, it has been of limited applicability due to cost, long duration of treatment and follow-up and the high rate of recurrence [10]


   Chemical Dissolution Top


Oral dissolvents

Bile acid treatment may be used as an alterna­tive treatment for surgery in a minority of patients 10-30% [8] . Litholysis is effective in patients with small (< 15 mm) radiolucent stones in a function­ing gallbladder. A complete dissolution is obtained in approximately 40% after two years of initiation of treatment [42] . A higher rate (55%) of dissolution has been reported in a group of appropriately-selected compliant patients, who tolerated an adequate treatment course [55] .

Two bile acids, chenodeoxycholic acid (CDCA) and ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) are commonly used to treat cholesterol gallstones. Chenodeoxycholic acid has been used clinically for cholesterol gallstone lysis since 1972 [56] . At an optimal dose both CDCA (15 mg/kg/day) and UDCA (10 mg/kg/day) have similar efficacy. While UDCA has minor or no side effects, CDCA treatment is associated with a number of side effects such as diarrhea, skin rash, hepatotoxicity and mild increase in the low-density lipoprotein cholesterol [57] . These side effects can be avoided by a combination of both bile acids, which have been found to be effective and safe in doses of 7­7.5 and 5-6.5 mg/kg/day for CDCA and UDCA, respectively [58],[59] . Furthermore, combination of CDCA and UDCA, and the bedtime adminis­tration has enhanced the effect of bile acid therapy [59] .

Recently, UDCA in combination with 3­hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A (HMG­CoA) reductase inhibitors such as simavastatin and lovastatin have been found to lower choles­terol saturation [60],[61] . Furthermore, combina­tion of UDCA with menthol has been more effec­tive compared to UDCA alone with a complete dissolution rate of 53 and 38%, respectively within 15-16.9 months. Both regimens have been found to be free of side effects [62] .

Dissolution of gallstones with bile acid combi­nations is an alternative medical treatment in a small, selected number of patients with poor sur­gical risk or unwillingness to undergo surgery. The high recurrence rate after therapy cessation, the narrow selection criteria, the long duration of treatment and follow-up have limited their wide application.

Direct contact dissolution

Two direct contact chemical agents, methyl tert-butyl ether and monooctanoin have been used to dissolve gallbladder and ductal cholesterol gallstones. Another contact dissolvent, ethylenediamine tetra-acetic acid (EDTA) is used to treat brown pigment stones of the bile duct.

Methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE)

Gallstones litholysis, using MTBE has been introduced in 1985 [63] . Methyl tert-butyl ether is instilled into the gallbladder through a percutane­ous transhepatic route or through retrograde endoscopic route using a nasobiliary tube. It has been found to be very effective with a stone dissol­ution rate exceeding 95% [64] . Also, common bile duct stones have been dissolved with a com­plete clearance in eight of ten patients [65] . Due to impossible prevention of spillage into the intes­tine and rapid absorption, MTBE cannot be gen­erally recommended for choledocholithiasis. Complete dissolution usually, is achieved within few hours of repeated MTBE infusion and aspira­tion. This is correlated with the number of stones and it has been shorter for a single, compared to multiple stones. The mean perfusion time is 10 hours [62] . Litholysis with MTBE is considered as an effective and safe alternative for surgery in high risk patients. The unwanted effects have been minor and rarely (7%) required treatment. The main side effects have included leucocytosis, hypertran­saminasemia, bile leak and hemobilia [62] .

Monooctanoin

This contact dissolvent has been used to dis­solve cholesterol gallstones in the common bile duct and to a lesser extent, gallbladder stones with a lower dissolving capability compared to MTBE. Unlike MTBE, monooctanoin has not been widely used for litholysis due to the long perfusion time needed (10-30 days) [66] , low efficacy rate and the frequently encountered side effects. Mild undesirable effects have often occurred in the form of abdominal pain, vomiting and diarrhea, as well as biliary and duodenal ulcerations. Serious side effects such as ulcer bleeding, obstructive jaundice, pancreatitis and pulmonary edema have been reported in four percent of patients [68].

Ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA)

Monooctanoin and more frequently, MTBE are used to dissolve cholesterol gallstones in gallbladder and common bile duct. Bile duct stones forming de novo in the common bile duct, are often brown pigment stones. These are approached by using contact dissolvents i.e. EDTA, which chelates calcium from calcium bilirubinate and form soluble sodium bilirubinate. The number of patients treated with EDTA is not large with stone dissolution of 40-70% of stones. In vitro studies, combination of EDTA with vari­ous detergents, thiols or urea, enhanced its dissol­ving capability [69] .

MTBE is the most commonly used and effective contact litholytic agent which can be considered as an alternative for surgery in high risk patients. In contrast monooctanoin's safety and efficacy are much lower. EDTA and combination solutions require further clinical evaluation.


   Recurrence and Prevention Top


The major disadvantage of stone dissolution and lithotripsy is the high recurrence rate. Up to 50% of patients develop stone recurrence within five years after cessation of bile acid therapy and rarely thereafter [55] . Recurrence rate after MTBE litholysis has been reported to be even higher [70] . In contrast, recurrence rate has been lower, following ESWL [71] . Factors determining recurrence are unknown, [55] however, presence of multiple primary stones [72] and duration of treatment until complete stone dissolution [73] have been incriminated as the important deter­minants of stone recurrence.

Similar to primary stone formation, the pathogenesis of stone recurrence is multifactorial. Bile supersaturation, nucleation defect, gallblad­der function and motility should be considered when planning for a successful treatment and recurrence prevention. Ideally, drugs used for treatment and prevention of gallstones should, in addition to their desaturating and nucleation inhibiting effects, control gallbladder function and motility [74] . A single agent with all of these characteristics, is not yet available. However, the following drugs with various modes of actions have been used either single or combined with others:


   Cdca Top


Through its inhibitory effect on HMG-CoA reductase activity, it decreases the cholesterol synthesis and subsequently, saturation index [75] . Furthermore, CDCA dissolves cholesterol in micells [58] . A low dose of CDCA or UDCA is not sufficient to prevent gallstone recurrence [76] .


   Udca Top


The mechanism of action of UDCA differs from that of CDCA. It enhances the hepatic conversion of cholesterol to bile acids [77] . It also enhances cholesterol transport as liquid crystals [58] . Fur­thermore, UDCA has an inhibitory action on the prostaglandins and biliary glycoprotein concen­tration which is the possible explanation for its action on decreasing the saturation index.

Aspirin and NSAIDs

Through inhibition of glycoprotein secretion by the gallbladder and probably their effect on gallbladder motility, NSAIDs inhibit the nuclea­tion and therefore, may be beneficial for the pre­vention of stone formation in patients at risk and prevention of recurrence. This has been shown by a group of regular NSAID users who have been followed up for a mean of 33 months, compared to control [78] . In another study, aspirin inhibited biliary glycoprotein concentration and prevented saturation index rise [78] .

Cisapride

Its prokinetic effect on the biliary system has been studied in animals and in man. It has shown an inhibitory effect on papilla sphincter motility, thus enhancing bile flow [79] . Similarly in patients with postcholecystectomy syndrome, biliary drainage was promoted by cisapride [80] . These data have suggested that cisapride may also be beneficial in the prevention of stone formation and recurrence. Further experimental and clinical evaluations may help to identify its role in preven­tion.

Diet

The role of diet in the prevention of new stone formation and stone recurrence is not clear.' A study evaluating the effect of vegetarian diet on gallstone formation in women suggested a strong, independent protective effect [81] . This has not been confirmed by the recent study of the British­Belgian gallstone group in patients put on high fiber, low-refined carbohydrate diet [76] .


   Treatment of Gallstones Recurrence Top


Recurrent stones have almost been similar in their characteristics to primary stones. They may be multiple, small, radio.lucent and responded to bile acid treatment [72] . Recurrent cholesterol gallstones are treated with single full dose or com­bined half dose of each of bile acids. Bile acid therapy has been reviewed by Lanzini [59] . The optimum dose has been 15 mg/kg/day for CDCA, 10 mg/kg/day for UDCA and 5-7 mg/kg/day for combined UDCA and CDCA, respectively, at bedtime until a complete dissolution has been achieved for a minimum of two years. At the end of four years, 80% of treated patients remained free of stones.

Bile acid therapy has dissolved 47% and with appropriate patients selection, 55% of stones. Combined bile acid therapy has been considered as the treatment of choice for most patients [55] . Administration of a combined CDCA, UDCA regimen at bedtime has prevented nocturnal bile saturation and enhanced the therapy efficacy [59].

 
   References Top

1.Soper NJ, Brunt LM, Kerbl K. Medical progress: laparoscopic general surgery. N Engl J Med 1994:330:409-19.  Back to cited text no. 1    
2.Begos DG, Medlin IM. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy from Gimmick to gold standard. J Clin Gastroenterol 1994;19:325-30.  Back to cited text no. 2    
3.Sauerbruch T. Stern M and the study group for shock­ wave lithotripsy of bile duct stones. Fragmentation of bile duct stones by extracorporeal shock waves. Gas­troenterology 1989;96:146-52.  Back to cited text no. 3    
4.Rege RV, Nemcek AA, Nahrwold DL. Selection of patients for gallstone lithotripsy. Am J Surg 1989;158:184-7.  Back to cited text no. 4  [PUBMED]  
5.Burdiles P, Csendes A, Diaz JC, Maluenda F, Avila S, Jorquera P, Aldunate M. Factors affecting mortality in patients over 70 years of age submitted to surgery for gallbladder or common bile duct stones. Hepato-gas­troenterol1989:36:136-9.  Back to cited text no. 5    
6.McSherry CK. Cholecystectomy: the gold standard. Am J Surg 1989;158:174-8.  Back to cited text no. 6  [PUBMED]  
7.Goco IR, Chambers LG. Mini-cholecystectomy and operative cholangiography. A main of cost containment. Am Surg 1983;49:143-5.  Back to cited text no. 7    
8.Cheslyn-Curtis S, Russell RCG. New trends in gallstone management. Br J Surg 1991;78:143-9.  Back to cited text no. 8    
9.Perissat J. Operative treatment of common bile stones: laparoscopic cholecystectomy and endoscopic treat­ment. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 1994;6:857-63.  Back to cited text no. 9    
10.Cotton PB, Chung SC, Davis WZ, Gibson RM, Ran­sohoff DF, Strasberg SM. Issues in cholecystectomy and management of duct stones. AJG 1994;89:5169-S76.  Back to cited text no. 10    
11.Fletcher DR, Jones RM, O'Riordan R, Hardy KT. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy for complicated gallstone disease. Surg Endosc 1992;6:179-82.  Back to cited text no. 11    
12.Ware RF, Kinny TR. Casey JR, Pappas TN, Merers WC. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy in young patients with sickle hemoglobinopathies. J Pediatr 1992;120:58-61.  Back to cited text no. 12    
13.Soper NT, Hunter JG, Petrie RH. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy during pregnancy. Surg Endosc 1992;6:115-7.  Back to cited text no. 13    
14.Collet D, Eyde M, Magne F, Perissat J. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy in the obese patient. Surg Endosc 1992:6:186- 8.  Back to cited text no. 14    
15.Perissat J, Collet D, Belliard R, Desplantez J, Magne E. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy: the state of the art. A report of 700 conservative cases. World J Surg 1992:16:1074-82.  Back to cited text no. 15    
16.Cocks J, Johnson W, Cade R et al. Bile duct injury during laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a report of the standards subcommittee of the Victorian State Committee of the Royal Australian College of Surgeons. Aust NZL Sure 1993;63:682-3.  Back to cited text no. 16    
17.Gouma DJ, GO PMNYH. Bile duct injury during laparoscopic and conventional cholecystectomy. J Am Coll Sure 1994;178:229-33.  Back to cited text no. 17    
18.Deziel DJ, Millikan KW, Economou SG, Doolas A, Ko ST, Airan MC. Complications of laparoscopic cholecys­tectomy: a national survey of 4,292 hospitals and an analysis of 77,604 cases. Am J Surg 1993:165:9-14.  Back to cited text no. 18    
19.Dubois F, Icard P, Berthelot G, Levard H. Coelioscopic cholecystectomy. Preliminary report of 36 cases. Ann Surg 1990;211:60-2.  Back to cited text no. 19    
20.McGahan JP, Lindfors KK. Percutaneous cholecystec­tomy: an alternative to surgical cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis. Radiology 1989;173:481-5.  Back to cited text no. 20  [PUBMED]  [FULLTEXT]
21.Sivak MV. Endoscopic management of bile duct stones. Am J Surg 1989:158:228-40.  Back to cited text no. 21    
22.Summerfield JA. Biliary obstruction is best managed by endoscopists. Gut 1988;29:741-5.  Back to cited text no. 22  [PUBMED]  [FULLTEXT]
23.Van Dam J, Sivak MV. Mechanical lithotripsy of large common bile duct stones. Cleve Clin J Med 1993:60:38­-40.  Back to cited text no. 23    
24.Cairns SR, Dias L, Cotton PB. Salmon PR, Russel RCG. Additional endoscopic procedures instead of urgent surgery for retained common bile duct stones. Gut 1989;30:535-40.  Back to cited text no. 24    
25.Maxton DG, Tweedle DEF, Martin DF. Retained com­mon bile duct stones after endoscopic sphincterotomy: temporary and long- term treatment with biliary stenting. Gut 1995:36:446-9.  Back to cited text no. 25    
26.Cotton PB, Lehman G. Vennes J et al. Endoscopic sphincterotomy, complications and their management. An attempt at consensus. Gastrointest Endosc 1991;37:383-93.  Back to cited text no. 26    
27.Schneider MU, Matek W, Bauer R, Domschke W. Mechanical lithotripsy of bile duct stones in 209 patients - effect of technical advances. Endoscopy 1988:20:248­-53.  Back to cited text no. 27    
28.Classen M, Hagenmuller F. Knyrim K, Frimberger E. Giant bile duct stones - nonsurgical treatment. Endos­copy 1988:20:21-6.  Back to cited text no. 28    
29.Orii K, Nakahara A. Takase Y, Ozaki A. Sakita T. Iwasaki Y. Chodelocholithotomy by YAG Laser with a choledochofiberscopy. Case reports of two patients. Surgery 1981:90:120-3.  Back to cited text no. 29    
30.Ell CH, Lux G, Hochberger J. Muller D. Demling L. Laserlithotripsy of common bile duct stones. Gut 1988:29:746- 51.  Back to cited text no. 30    
31.Nishioka NS. Kelsey PB. Kibbi AG. Delmonico F. Par­rish JA, Anderson RR. Laser lithotripsy: animal studies of safety and efficacy. Lasers Surg Med 1988;8:357-62.  Back to cited text no. 31    
32.Kozarek RA. Low DE. Ball TJ. Tunable dye laser lithot­ripsy: in vivo treatment of choledocholithiasis. Gastroin­test Endosc 1988;34:418-21.  Back to cited text no. 32    
33.Cotton PB, Kozarek RA. Shapiro RH et al. Endoscopic laser lithotripsy of large bile duct stones. Gastroenterol­ogy 1990;99:1128-33.  Back to cited text no. 33    
34.Neuhaus H, Hoffmann W, Zillinger C, Classen M. Laser lithotripsy of difficult bile duct stones under direct visual control. Gut 1993;34:415-21.  Back to cited text no. 34  [PUBMED]  [FULLTEXT]
35.Neuhaus H, Hoffmann W. Gottlieb. Classen M. Endos­copic lithotripsy of bile duct stones using a new laser with automatic stone recognition. Gastrointest Endosc 1994:40:708- 15.  Back to cited text no. 35    
36.Burrhenne HJ. Electrohydraulic fragmentation of retained common bile duct stones. Radiology 1975;117:721-2.  Back to cited text no. 36    
37.Eckhauser FE, Raper SE. Knol JA et al. Extracorporeal lithotripsy: an important adjunct in the nonoperative management of retained or recurrent bile duct stones. Arch Surg 1991;126:829-35.  Back to cited text no. 37    
38.Leung JWC, Chung SCS. Electrohydraulic lithotripsy with peroral cholechoscopy. Br Med J 1989:229:595-8.  Back to cited text no. 38    
39.Yoshimoto H, Ikada S, Tanaka M, Matsumoto S, Kuroda Y. Choledochoscopic electrohydraulic litho­tripsy and lithotomy for stones in the common bile duct, intrahepatic ducts and gallbladder. Ann Surg 1989:210:576-82.  Back to cited text no. 39    
40.Bonnel DH. Liguory CE, Cornud FE, Lefebvre JP. Common bile duct and intrahepatic stones: results of transhepatic electrohydraulic lithotripsy in 50 patients. Radiology 1991;180:345-8.  Back to cited text no. 40    
41.Sauerbruch T, Delius M, Paumgartner G et al. Fragmen­tation of gallstones by extracorporeal shock waves. N Engl J Med 1986:314:818-22.  Back to cited text no. 41    
42.Paumgartner G, Carr-Locke DL, Dubois F, Roda E, Thistle JL. Strategies in the treatment of gallstone dis­ease. Gastroenterol Internat 1993;6:65-75.  Back to cited text no. 42    
43.Paumgartner G. Extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy. EurJ Gastroenterol Hepatol 1994;6:867-72.  Back to cited text no. 43    
44.Sackmann M, Panletzki J, Sauerbruch T, Holl J, Schel­ling G, Paumgartner G. The Munich gallbladder litho­tripsy study. Results of the first 5 years with 711 patients. Ann Int Med 1991;114:290-6.  Back to cited text no. 44    
45.Schachler R, Sauerbruch T, Wosiewitz U et al. Frag­mentation of gallstones using extracorporeal shock waves lithoripsy: an in vitro study. Hepatology 1988: 8:925-9.  Back to cited text no. 45    
46.Classen M. Cremer M, Fanstini S et al. Electromagnetic shock- wave lithotripsy of gallbladder calculi: multicen­tered preliminary report on experience with 276 patients. Hepato- gastroenterol 1990:37:425-7.  Back to cited text no. 46    
47.Neubrand M. Sauerbruch T, Stellard F et al. In vitro cholesterol gallstone dissolution after fragmentation with shock waves. Digestion 1986:34:51-9.  Back to cited text no. 47    
48.Greiner L, Jakobeit C. Biliary shock-wave lithoripsy: experience of the first three years in 612 patients. In Swobodnik W. Ditschuneit H. Soloway RD (Eds). Gallstone disease. Springer. Berlin 1990:177-93.  Back to cited text no. 48    
49.Elewat A. Crape A, Afschrift M, Pauwels W, De Vos M, Barbier F. Results of extracorporeal shock wave litho­tripsy of gallbladder stones in 693 patients. A plea for restriction to solitary radiolucent stones. Gut 1993;34:274-8.  Back to cited text no. 49    
50.McSherry CK, EDAP investigators group: the results of the EDAP multicenter trial of biliary lithotripsy in the United States. Surgery 1991:173:461-4.  Back to cited text no. 50    
51.Benninger J. Schneider HT, Blaufuss M, Rabenstein T, Flugel H, Hahn EG, Ell C. Piezoelektrische lithotripsy von Gallenblasensteinen. Akut-und Langzeitergebnisse. Dtsch Med Wschr 1992:117:1350-4.  Back to cited text no. 51    
52.Wehrmann T, Hurst A, Lembeke B, Jung M, Caspary W. Biliary lithotripsy with a new electromagnetic shock wave source. A two-year clinical experience. Dig Dis Sci 1993:38:2113-20.  Back to cited text no. 52    
53.Norman RW, Roy PD, Yoshida NR, Le Brun GP, Fried LA. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for stones in the bile ducts. Ann RCPSC 1994:27:87-9.  Back to cited text no. 53    
54.Al Karawi MA. Mohammed AE. Al Etaibi KE. Abomelha MS. Saeed RF. Extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy (ESWL)-induced erosions in upper gastroin­testinal tract. Urology 1987:30:224- 7.  Back to cited text no. 54    
55.O'Donnel LDJ. Heaton KW.Recurrence and re-recur­rence of gallstones after medical dissolution: a long-term follow-up. Gut 1988;29:655-8.  Back to cited text no. 55    
56.Danzinger RG. Hofmann AF. Schoenfield LJ, Thistle JL. Dissolution of cholesterol gallstones by chenodeoxycholic acid. N Engl J Med 1972;286:1-8.  Back to cited text no. 56    
57.Schoenfield LJ, Lachin JM. The Steering Committee and The National Cooperative Gallstone Study Group. Chenodiol (chenodeoxycholic acid) for dissolution of gallstones. The National Cooperative Gallstone Study. Ann Int Med 1981;95:257- 82.  Back to cited text no. 57    
58.Fromm H. Gallstone dissolution therapy: current status and future prospects. Gastroenterology 1986;91:1560-7.  Back to cited text no. 58  [PUBMED]  
59.Lanzini A. Bile acid therapy. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 1994;6:864-6.  Back to cited text no. 59    
60.Duane WC, Hunninghake DB, Freeman ML, Pooler PA, Schlasner LA, Gerhard RL. Simavastin, a competi­tive inhibitor of HMG-CoA reductase, lowers choles­terol saturation index of gallbladder bile. Hepatology 1988;8:1147-50.  Back to cited text no. 60    
61.Michell JC, Logan GM, Stone BG. Duane WC. Effect of lovostatin on biliary lipid secretion and bile acid metabolism in human. J Lip Res 1991;32:71-8.  Back to cited text no. 61    
62.Leuschner M, Leuschner U, Lazarovici D, Kurtz W, Hellstern A. Dissolution of gallstones with an ursodeoxycholic acid menthol preparation: a controlled prospective double-blind trial. Gut 1988;29:428-32.  Back to cited text no. 62  [PUBMED]  [FULLTEXT]
63.Allen MJ, Borody TJ, Bugliosi TF, May GR, La Russo NF, Thistle JL. Cholelitholysis using methyl tert-butyl ether. Gastroenterology 1985;88:122-5.  Back to cited text no. 63    
64.Thistle JL, May GR, Bander CE et al. Dissolution of cholesterol gallbladder stones by methyl tert-butyl ether administered by percutaneous transhepatic catheter. N Engl J Med 1989;320:633-9.  Back to cited text no. 64    
65.Murray WC, Laferla G, Fullarton GM. Choledocholithiasis in vivo stone dissolution using methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE). Gut 1988;29:143-5.  Back to cited text no. 65    
66.Leuschner U. Baumgartel H. Clinical dissolution of com­mon bile duct stones. In Okuda K, Nakayama K, Wong F (Eds). Intrahepatic calculi. New York, Alan R Liss Inc 1984;193-225.  Back to cited text no. 66    
67.Leuschner U. Contact dissolution. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 1994;6:873-9.  Back to cited text no. 67    
68.Palmer KR, Hofmann AF. Intraductal monooctanoin for the direct dissolution of bile duct stones. Experience in 343 patients. Gut 1986;27:196-202.  Back to cited text no. 68    
69.Wosiewtiz U, Sabinski F, Haus CH, Guldutuna S, Leus­chner U. Experimental dissolution of pigment material using alkaline EDTA and adjuvant bile salts/non-bile salts detergents, thiols and urea, with respect to local chemolitholysis. J Hepatol 1992;14:7-15.  Back to cited text no. 69    
70.McCullough JE, Stadheim LM, Reading CC, Petersen BT, Thistle JL. Gallstone recurrence after methyl tert­butyl ether dissolution. Gastroenterology 1990;89(suppl):A 255.  Back to cited text no. 70    
71.Sackmann M, Ippish E, Sauerbruch T. Holl J, Brendel W, Paumgartner G. Early gallstone recurrence after suc­cessful shock-wave therapy. Gastroenterology 1990;9:392-6.  Back to cited text no. 71    
72.Petroni ML, Jazrawi RP, Goggin PM, Lazini A, Fac­chinetti F, Heaton KW, Northfield TC. Characteristics of recurrent gallstones following nonsurgical treatment: implications for re-treatment. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 1991;3:473-8.  Back to cited text no. 72    
73.Lazini A. Jazrawi RP, Kupfer RM, Mandgal DP, Joseph AEA, Northfield TC. Gallstone recurrence after medical dissolution: an over-estimated threat ? J Hepatol 1986;3:241-6.  Back to cited text no. 73    
74.Jazrawi RP. Gallstone recurrence and its management. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 1994;6:880-4.  Back to cited text no. 74    
75.Angelin B, Ewerth S, Einarsson. Ursodeoxycholic acid treatment in cholesterol gallstone dissolution: effects on hepatic 3- hydroxy -3-methylglutaryl coenzyme, a reduc­tase activity, biliary lipid composition and plasma lipid level. J Lipid Res 1983;24:461-8.  Back to cited text no. 75    
76.Hood KA, Gleeson D, Ruppin DC and the British-Bel­gian Gallstone Study Group's post-dissolution trial. Gut 1993;34:1277-88.  Back to cited text no. 76    
77.Broomfield PH, Chopra R, Sheinbaum RC, Bonorris GG, Silverman A, Schoenfield LJ, Marks JW. Effects of ursodeoxycholic acid and aspirin on the formation of lithogenic bile and gallstones during loss of weight. N Engl J Med 1988;319:1567-72.  Back to cited text no. 77  [PUBMED]  
78.Hood K, Glesson D, Ruppin DC, Dowling RH. Preven­tion of gallstone recurrence by non-steroidal anti-inflam­matory drugs. Lancet 1988;ii: 1223-5.  Back to cited text no. 78    
79.Baker RA, Saccone GTP, Toouli J. Cisapride inhibits sphincter of Oddi motility in the Australian possum. Gas­troenterology 1989;96:A23.  Back to cited text no. 79    
80.Bouzo H. Cisapride in the postcholecystectomy syn­drome: A double-blind, placebo-contolled crossover study. Curr Ther Res 1990;47:566-70.  Back to cited text no. 80    
81.Pixley F, Wilson D, McPherson K, Mann J. Effect of vegetarianism on development of gallstones in women. Br Med J 1985;291:11-2.  Back to cited text no. 81    

Top
Correspondence Address:
Ibrahim A Al Mofleh
Professor of Medicine, Gastroenterology Division(59), P.O. Box 2925, Riyadh 11461
Saudi Arabia
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


PMID: 19864839

Rights and PermissionsRights and Permissions


    Figures

  [Figure - 1]
 
 
    Tables

  [Table - 1]



 

Top
 
  Search
 
  
  
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  


    Abstract
    Operative Approaches
    Endoscopic Approach
    Lithotripsy
    Chemical Dissolution
    Recurrence and P...
    Cdca
    Udca
    Treatment of Gal...
    References
    Article Figures
    Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed6259    
    Printed160    
    Emailed2    
    PDF Downloaded0    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal