Cargando…

The Role of Laparoscopic Ultrasonography in the Evaluation of Suspected Choledocholithiasis. A Single-Center Experience

Background and objectives: Opinions differ regarding the optimal diagnostic methods for patients with suspected choledocholithiasis. The aim of this study was to assess the diagnostic accuracy of laparoscopic ultrasonography (LUS) and compare it to pre-operative magnetic resonance cholangio-pancreat...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Atstupens, Kristaps, Mukans, Maksims, Plaudis, Haralds, Pupelis, Guntars
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7279262/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32443814
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/medicina56050246
_version_ 1783543518634967040
author Atstupens, Kristaps
Mukans, Maksims
Plaudis, Haralds
Pupelis, Guntars
author_facet Atstupens, Kristaps
Mukans, Maksims
Plaudis, Haralds
Pupelis, Guntars
author_sort Atstupens, Kristaps
collection PubMed
description Background and objectives: Opinions differ regarding the optimal diagnostic methods for patients with suspected choledocholithiasis. The aim of this study was to assess the diagnostic accuracy of laparoscopic ultrasonography (LUS) and compare it to pre-operative magnetic resonance cholangio-pancreatography (MRCP); Materials and Methods: In all patients with suspected choledocholithiasis LUS was performed during laparoscopic cholecystectomy to evaluate biliary stones. According to availability, part of the patients had pre-operative MRCP. Data for diagnostic accuracy and main outcomes were collected prospectively and analyzed retrospectively; Results: Choledocholithiasis was detected in 178 of 297 patients by LUS (59.93%) and in 39 of 87 patients by MRCP (44.8%), p = 0.041. LUS yielded a sensitivity of 99.4%, a specificity of 94.3%, a positive predictive value of 96.1% and a negative predictive value of 99.1%. However, pre-operative MRCP had a sensitivity of 61.7%, a specificity of 92.3%, a positive predictive value of 94.9% and a negative predictive value of 51.1%. Moreover, of the 47 patients with no choledocholithiasis by MRCP, in 23 cases it was later detected by LUS (a false negative MRCP finding—38.3%), p < 0.001. Median duration of hospitalization was significantly shorter in patients evaluated without pre-operative MRCP—8 days (interquartile range – IQR 11–6) vs. 11 days (IQR 14–9), p = 0.001; Conclusions: LUS may reduce the role of pre-operative MRCP and can become a rational alternative to MRCP as a primary imaging technique for the detection of choledocholithiasis.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7279262
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-72792622020-06-15 The Role of Laparoscopic Ultrasonography in the Evaluation of Suspected Choledocholithiasis. A Single-Center Experience Atstupens, Kristaps Mukans, Maksims Plaudis, Haralds Pupelis, Guntars Medicina (Kaunas) Article Background and objectives: Opinions differ regarding the optimal diagnostic methods for patients with suspected choledocholithiasis. The aim of this study was to assess the diagnostic accuracy of laparoscopic ultrasonography (LUS) and compare it to pre-operative magnetic resonance cholangio-pancreatography (MRCP); Materials and Methods: In all patients with suspected choledocholithiasis LUS was performed during laparoscopic cholecystectomy to evaluate biliary stones. According to availability, part of the patients had pre-operative MRCP. Data for diagnostic accuracy and main outcomes were collected prospectively and analyzed retrospectively; Results: Choledocholithiasis was detected in 178 of 297 patients by LUS (59.93%) and in 39 of 87 patients by MRCP (44.8%), p = 0.041. LUS yielded a sensitivity of 99.4%, a specificity of 94.3%, a positive predictive value of 96.1% and a negative predictive value of 99.1%. However, pre-operative MRCP had a sensitivity of 61.7%, a specificity of 92.3%, a positive predictive value of 94.9% and a negative predictive value of 51.1%. Moreover, of the 47 patients with no choledocholithiasis by MRCP, in 23 cases it was later detected by LUS (a false negative MRCP finding—38.3%), p < 0.001. Median duration of hospitalization was significantly shorter in patients evaluated without pre-operative MRCP—8 days (interquartile range – IQR 11–6) vs. 11 days (IQR 14–9), p = 0.001; Conclusions: LUS may reduce the role of pre-operative MRCP and can become a rational alternative to MRCP as a primary imaging technique for the detection of choledocholithiasis. MDPI 2020-05-20 /pmc/articles/PMC7279262/ /pubmed/32443814 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/medicina56050246 Text en © 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Atstupens, Kristaps
Mukans, Maksims
Plaudis, Haralds
Pupelis, Guntars
The Role of Laparoscopic Ultrasonography in the Evaluation of Suspected Choledocholithiasis. A Single-Center Experience
title The Role of Laparoscopic Ultrasonography in the Evaluation of Suspected Choledocholithiasis. A Single-Center Experience
title_full The Role of Laparoscopic Ultrasonography in the Evaluation of Suspected Choledocholithiasis. A Single-Center Experience
title_fullStr The Role of Laparoscopic Ultrasonography in the Evaluation of Suspected Choledocholithiasis. A Single-Center Experience
title_full_unstemmed The Role of Laparoscopic Ultrasonography in the Evaluation of Suspected Choledocholithiasis. A Single-Center Experience
title_short The Role of Laparoscopic Ultrasonography in the Evaluation of Suspected Choledocholithiasis. A Single-Center Experience
title_sort role of laparoscopic ultrasonography in the evaluation of suspected choledocholithiasis. a single-center experience
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7279262/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32443814
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/medicina56050246
work_keys_str_mv AT atstupenskristaps theroleoflaparoscopicultrasonographyintheevaluationofsuspectedcholedocholithiasisasinglecenterexperience
AT mukansmaksims theroleoflaparoscopicultrasonographyintheevaluationofsuspectedcholedocholithiasisasinglecenterexperience
AT plaudisharalds theroleoflaparoscopicultrasonographyintheevaluationofsuspectedcholedocholithiasisasinglecenterexperience
AT pupelisguntars theroleoflaparoscopicultrasonographyintheevaluationofsuspectedcholedocholithiasisasinglecenterexperience
AT atstupenskristaps roleoflaparoscopicultrasonographyintheevaluationofsuspectedcholedocholithiasisasinglecenterexperience
AT mukansmaksims roleoflaparoscopicultrasonographyintheevaluationofsuspectedcholedocholithiasisasinglecenterexperience
AT plaudisharalds roleoflaparoscopicultrasonographyintheevaluationofsuspectedcholedocholithiasisasinglecenterexperience
AT pupelisguntars roleoflaparoscopicultrasonographyintheevaluationofsuspectedcholedocholithiasisasinglecenterexperience