Prophylactic Biliary Stenting Before Cholecystectomy in Patients With Gallstones and Common Bile Duct Stones

Hideaki Kawabata, Yukino Kawakatsu, Katsutoshi Yamaguchi, Daiki Sone, Naonori Inoue, Yuki Ueda, Yuji Okazaki, Misuzu Hitomi, Masatoshi Miyata, Shigehiro Motoi, Kenichirou Fukuda, Yoshihiro Shimizu


Background: The usefulness of prophylactic biliary stenting for patients with common bile duct stones (CBDS) and gallstones (GS) to prevent recurrent biliary events after endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) and CBDS extraction before elective cholecystectomy remains controversial. The aim of this study was to evaluate the risk of recurrent CBDS around the perioperative period and clarify its risk factors.

Methods: The clinical data of all patients who received prophylactic biliary stenting after EST for CBDS and later underwent cholecystectomy for GS followed by stent extraction in our institution were retrospectively reviewed. The numbers of residual CBDS at the end first and second endoscopic retrograde cholangiography (ERC) studies were compared. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed using a logistic regression model to determine risk factors for recurrent CBDS in the perioperative period.

Results: Forty-two consecutive patients received prophylactic biliary stenting and subsequent cholecystectomy for GS. Three of these patients were excluded from this study because the number of residual stones was not confirmed. The median maximum CBDS diameter at second ERC was 0 mm (range, 0 - 10 mm); six patients had multiple CBDS (>= 5). The number of CBDS at second ERC was increased in comparison to that at the first ERC in 15 patients (38.4%), and was unchanged or decreased in 24 patients. The median minimum cystic duct diameter was 4 mm (range, 1 - 8 mm). The median interval between first ERC and operation was 26 days (range, 2 - 131 days). The median interval between operation and second ERC was 41 days (range, 26 - 96 days). Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) was performed in 38 patients, one of whom was converted from LC to open cholecystectomy. Postoperative complications (transient bacteremia) occurred in one patient. The cystic duct diameter was an independent risk factor for an increased number of CBDS at second ERC in the multivariate analysis (odds ratio 0.611 (95% confidence interval (0.398 - 0.939)), P = 0.03).

Conclusion: Recurrent CBDS around the perioperative period of cholecystectomy is not a rare complication after EST and the removal of CBDS with concomitant GS. Prophylactic biliary stenting is considered useful for preventing CBDS-associated complications, especially for patients in whom the cystic duct diameter is larger (>= mm).

Gastroenterol Res. 2019;12(4):191-197


CBD stone; Gallstone; Biliary stent; Endoscopic sphincterotomy; Cholecystectomy

Full Text: HTML PDF

Browse  Journals  


Journal of Clinical Medicine Research

Journal of Endocrinology and Metabolism

Journal of Clinical Gynecology and Obstetrics


World Journal of Oncology

Gastroenterology Research

Journal of Hematology


Journal of Medical Cases

Journal of Current Surgery

Clinical Infection and Immunity


Cardiology Research

World Journal of Nephrology and Urology

Cellular and Molecular Medicine Research


Journal of Neurology Research

International Journal of Clinical Pediatrics



Gastroenterology Research, bimonthly, ISSN 1918-2805 (print), 1918-2813 (online), published by Elmer Press Inc.                     
The content of this site is intended for health care professionals.

This is an open-access journal distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License, which permits unrestricted
non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Creative Commons Attribution license (Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International CC-BY-NC 4.0)

This journal follows the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) recommendations for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals,
the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines, and the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing.

website:   editorial contact:
Address: 9225 Leslie Street, Suite 201, Richmond Hill, Ontario, L4B 3H6, Canada

© Elmer Press Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in the published articles are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of the editors and Elmer Press Inc. This website is provided for medical research and informational purposes only and does not constitute any medical advice or professional services. The information provided in this journal should not be used for diagnosis and treatment, those seeking medical advice should always consult with a licensed physician.