Background and study aims: To study the effectiveness of endoscopic treatment for biliary stones in a large case list of patients treated in units with different experience and different workloads in a region of northern Italy.
Patients and methods: We prospectively studied 700 patients undergoing endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography or sphincterotomy, in 14 units (> or < 200 examinations/year), for their first treatment of biliary stones. The difficulty of the examinations, the results in terms of clearance of the stones, and the late outcomes (24 months) were recorded. A questionnaire (GHAA-9modified) was administered 24 hours and 30 days after the procedure to measure patient satisfaction.
Results: There were six units with a heavy workload and eight with a light schedule. There were 176 (25.1 %) difficult examinations (Schutz grades 3, 4, and 5). Stones were found in 580 (82.9 %) and were cleared in 504 of these patients (86.9 %). No differences were observed in the clearance of stones for the different groups of difficulty and high- and low-volume centers. Over the 24-month follow-up period, 96 patients (13.7 %) complained of recurrent symptoms and 44 (6.3 %) had proof of stones. In all, 603 questionnaires were evaluable and more than 80 % of patients expressed satisfaction.
Conclusions: Our findings confirm the effectiveness of endoscopic treatment of biliary stones. However, the number of patients with symptoms (13.7) after 24 months, with or without persistence of stones, was not insignificant. It is feasible to record patient satisfaction, and in this series patients stated they were satisfied. Criticism mostly concerned pain control and explanations provided before the examination.
References
1
Jowell P S, Biellie J, Branch S. et al .
Quantitative assessment of procedural competence: a prospective study of training in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography.
Ann Intern Med.
1996;
125
983-989
2
Roston A D, Jacobson I M.
Evaluation of the pattern of liver tests and yield of cholangiography in symptomatic choledocolithiasis: a prospective study.
Gastrointest Endosc.
1997;
45
394-399
3
Freeman M L, Nelson D B, Sherman S. et al .
Complications of endoscopic biliary sphincterotomy.
N Engl J Med.
1996;
335
909-918
4
Johanson J F, Cooper G, Eisen G M. et al. for the American Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Outcomes Research Committee .
Quality assessment of ERCP. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography.
Gastrointest Endosc.
2002;
56
165-169
5
Keats A S.
The ASA classifications of physical status: recapitulation.
Anesthesiology.
1978;
49
239-243
6
Cotton P B.
Income and outcome metrics for the objective evaluation of ERCP and alternative methods.
Gastrointest Endosc.
2002;
56 (Suppl 6)
S283-S290
7
Katz D, Nikfarjam M, Sfakioyaki A, Christophi C.
Selective endoscopic cholangiography for the detection of common bile duct stones in patients with cholelithiasis.
Endoscopy.
2004;
36
1045-1049
8
Prat F, Meduri B, Ducot B. et al .
Prediction of common bile duct stones by non invasive tests.
Ann of Surg.
1999;
229
362-368
9
Schutz S M, Abbott R M.
Grading ERCPs by degree of difficulty: a new concept to produce more meaningful outcome data.
Gastrointest Endosc.
2000;
51
535-539
10
Brotman M, Allen J I, Bickston S J. et al .
AGA Task force on Quality in Practice. A national overview and implications for GI practice.
Gastroenterology.
2005;
129
361-369
11
Costamagna G, Tringali A, Shah S H. et al .
Long-term follow-up of patients after endoscopic sphincterotomy for choledocolithiasis, and risk factors for recurrences.
Endoscopy.
2002;
34
273-279
12
Lai K-H, Lo G H, Lin C K. et al .
Do patients with recurrent choledocolithiasis after endoscopic sphincterotomy benefit from regular follow-up?.
Gastrointest Endosc.
2002;
55
523-526
13
Lisen G M, Degarmo P, Brodner R, Lieberman D A.
Can the ASA grade predict the risk of endoscopic complications?.
Gastrointest Endosc.
2000;
51
AB 142
14
Loperfido S, Angelini G, Benedetti G. et al .
Major early complications from diagnostic and therapeutic ERCP: a prospective multicenter study.
Gastrointest Endosc.
1998;
48
1-10
15
Christensen M, Matzen P, Schulze S, Rosemberg J.
Complications of ERCP; a prospective study.
Gastrointest Endosc.
2004;
60
721-731
16
Johanson J F.
Quality and outcomes management in gastroenterology.
Gastroenterol Clin N Am.
1997;
26
859-871
17
Baron T H, Peterson B T, Mergener K, Amitabh C.
Quality indicators for endoscopic cholangiopancreaotography.
Am J Gastroenterol.
2006;
101
892-897
18
Tham T CK, Carr-Locke D L, Collins J SA.
Endoscopic sphincterotomy in the young patient: is there cause for concern?.
Gut.
1997;
40
687-700
19
Yaradarajula S, Kilgure M I, Wilcox C M, Eloubeldi M A.
Relationship among hospital ERCP volume, length of stay and technical outcomes.
Gastrointest Endosc.
2006;
64
338-350
20
Williams E J, Taylor S, Fairclough P. et al .
Are we meeting the standards set for endoscopy? Results of a large-scale prospective survey of endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatograph practice.
Gut.
2007;
58
821-829
21
Naylor G, Gatta L, Butler A. et al .
Setting up a Quality Assurance Program in Endoscopy.
Endoscopy.
2003;
35
701-708
22
Harewood G C, Wiersema M J, de Groen P T.
Utility of webbased assessment of patient satisfaction with endoscopy.
Am J Gastroenterol.
2003;
98
1061-1021
E. Masci, MD
Vita-Salute San Raffaele University IRCCS San Raffaele Hospital Department of Gastroenterology and Gastrointestinal Endoscopy
Via Olgettina 60 20132 Milan Italy
Fax: +39-02-26432504
Email: masci.enzo@hsr.it