中文English
ISSN 1001-5256 (Print)
ISSN 2097-3497 (Online)
CN 22-1108/R
Volume 39 Issue 2
Feb.  2023
Turn off MathJax
Article Contents

Value of endoscopic ultrasonography in the diagnosis of muddy stones of the common bile duct

DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-5256.2023.02.018
Research funding:

Guangxi Natural Science Foundation (2015GXNSFAA139222);

The Health Commission of Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region (Z20200686)

More Information
  • Corresponding author: ZHANG Qifang, zhangqifang-gl@163.com (ORCID: 0000-0001-6889-8847)
  • Received Date: 2022-07-25
  • Accepted Date: 2022-08-29
  • Published Date: 2023-02-20
  •   Objective  To investigate whether endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) can be an alternative method for diagnostic endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) by comparing the ability of EUS versus CT and transabdominal ultrasonography (TUS) in the diagnosis of muddy stones of the common bile duct.  Methods  A prospective study was conducted for 53 patients suspected of muddy stones of the common bile duct who attended Nanxishan Hospital of Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region from July 2019 to December 2021, and all patients underwent EUS, TUS, and CT before ERCP. With ERCP and endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) for removing muddy stones of the common bile duct as the gold standard for the diagnosis of muddy stones of the common bile duct, EUS, TUS, and CT were compared in terms of their ability to display the muddy stones of the common bile duct. The chi-square test or the Fisher's exact test was used for comparison of categorical data between groups.  Results  In the 53 patients, EUS, TUS, and CT had a positive rate of 88.68%, 50.94%, and 62.26%, respectively, in detecting muddy stones of the common bile duct. As for the positive results confirmed by EST under ERCP, EUS had a sensitivity of 93.75%, a specificity of 60.00%, and an accuracy of 90.57% in detecting muddy stones of the common bile duct, while TUS had a sensitivity of 56.25%, a specificity of 100.00%, and an accuracy of 60.38% and CT had a sensitivity of 66.67%, a specificity of 80.00%, and an accuracy of 67.92%. There was a significant difference between EUS and CT in the accuracy in detecting muddy stones of the common bile duct (χ2=8.26, P=0.004), and there was also a significant difference in diagnostic accuracy between EUS and TUS (χ2=13.05, P < 0.001).  Conclusion  EUS is more accurate than TUS and CT in the diagnosis of muddy stones of the common bile duct, and instead of ERCP, EUS is thus recommended for suspected muddy stones of the common bile duct when TUS and CT fail to identify the lesions in clinical practice, so as to make a confirmed diagnosis and reduce related costs and complications.

     

  • loading
  • [1]
    CAI JS, QIANG S, BAO-BING Y. Advances of recurrent risk factors and management of choledocholithiasis[J]. Scand J Gastroenterol, 2017, 52(1): 34-43. DOI: 10.1080/00365521.2016.1224382.
    [2]
    WILKINS T, AGABIN E, VARGHESE J, et al. Gallbladder dysfunction: cholecystitis, choledocholithiasis, cholangitis, and biliary dyskinesia[J]. Prim Care, 2017, 44(4): 575-597. DOI: 10.1016/j.pop.2017.07.002.
    [3]
    MA RH, LUO XB, WANG XF, et al. A comparative study of mud-like and coralliform calcium carbonate gallbladder stones[J]. Microsc Res Tech, 2017, 80(7): 722-730. DOI: 10.1002/jemt.22857.
    [4]
    PEREIRA R, ESLICK G, COX M. Endoscopic ultrasound for routine assessment in idiopathic acute pancreatitis[J]. J Gastrointest Surg, 2019, 23(8): 1694-1700. DOI: 10.1007/s11605-019-04272-3.
    [5]
    HILL PA, HARRIS RD. Clinical importance and natural history of biliary sludge in outpatients[J]. J Ultrasound Med, 2016, 35(3): 605-610. DOI: 10.7863/ultra.15.05026.
    [6]
    KEIZMAN D, ISH-SHALOM M, KONIKOFF FM. The clinical significance of bile duct sludge: is it different from bile duct stones?[J]. Surg Endosc, 2007, 21(5): 769-773. DOI: 10.1007/s00464-006-9153-0.
    [7]
    PLEWKA M, RYSZ J, KUJAWSKI K. Complications of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography[J]. Pol Merkur Lekarski, 2017, 43(258): 272-275.
    [8]
    ŞURLIN V, SǍFTOIU A, DUMITRESCU D. Imaging tests for accurate diagnosis of acute biliary pancreatitis[J]. World J Gastroenterol, 2014, 20(44): 16544-16549. DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v20.i44.16544.
    [9]
    COSTI R, SARLI L, CARUSO G, et al. Preoperative ultrasonographic assessment of the number and size of gallbladder stones: is it a useful predictor of asymptomatic choledochal lithiasis?[J]. J Ultrasound Med, 2002, 21(9): 971-976. DOI: 10.7863/jum.2002.21.9.971.
    [10]
    CANLAS KR, BRANCH MS. Role of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in acute pancreatitis[J]. World J Gastroenterol, 2007, 13(47): 6314-6320. DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v13.i47.6314.
    [11]
    LOU LZ, LIU HL, REN JC. Clinical value of magnetic reso- nance cholangiopancrea tography and CT in the diagnosis of 70 patients with biliary calculi[J]. Guide China Med, 2017, 15(16): 97-98. DOI: 10.15912/j.cnki.gocm.2017.16.074.

    娄立志, 刘红玲, 任锦程. 70例胆系结石患者行磁共振胰胆管成像和CT诊断的临床价值分析[J]. 中国医药指南, 2017, 15(16): 97-98. DOI: 10.15912/j.cnki.gocm.2017.16.074.
    [12]
    PATEL R, INGLE M, CHOKSI D, et al. Endoscopic ultrasonography can prevent unnecessary diagnostic endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography even in patients with high likelihood of choledocholithiasis and inconclusive ultrasonography: results of a prospective study[J]. Clin Endosc, 2017, 50(6): 592-597. DOI: 10.5946/ce.2017.010.
    [13]
    PRAT F, AMOUYAL G, AMOUYAL P, et al. Prospective controlled study of endoscopic ultrasonography and endoscopic retrograde cholangiography in patients with suspected common-bileduct lithiasis[J]. Lancet, 1996, 347(8994): 75-79. DOI: 10.1016/s0140-6736(96)90208-1.
    [14]
    KOHUT M, NOWAK A, NOWAKOWSKA-DULAWA E, et al. Endosonography with linear array instead of endoscopic retrograde cholangiography as the diagnostic tool in patients with moderate suspicion of common bile duct stones[J]. World J Gastroenterol, 2003, 9(3): 612-614. DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v9.i3.612.
    [15]
    MESIHOVI C ' R, MEHMEDOVI C ' A. Better non-invasive endoscopic procedure: endoscopic ultrasound or magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography?[J]. Med Glas (Zenica), 2019, 16(1): 40-44. DOI: 10.17392/955-19.
    [16]
    JVNGST C, KULLAK-UBLICK GA, JVNGST D. Gallstone disease: Microlithiasis and sludge[J]. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol, 2006, 20(6): 1053-1062. DOI: 10.1016/j.bpg.2006.03.007.
    [17]
    ZHANG H, HUANG P, ZHANG XF, et al. Comparison of endoscopic ultrasonography, transabdominal ultrasonography and magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography in diagnosis of common bile duct stones[J]. China J Endosc, 2015, 21(1): 26-29. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-ZGNJ201501006.htm

    张皞, 黄平, 张筱凤, 等. 超声内镜、腹部超声及磁共振胰胆管造影对胆总管结石诊断价值的对比分析研究[J]. 中国内镜杂志, 2015, 21(1): 26-29. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-ZGNJ201501006.htm
    [18]
    JEON TJ, CHO JH, KIM YS, et al. Diagnostic value of endoscopic ultrasonography in symptomatic patients with high and intermediate probabilities of common bile duct stones and a negative computed tomography scan[J]. Gut Liver, 2017, 11(2): 290-297. DOI: 10.5009/gnl16052.
    [19]
    DITTRICK G, LAMONT JP, KUHN JA, et al. Usefulness of endoscopic ultrasound in patients at high risk of choledocholithiasis[J]. Proc (Bayl Univ Med Cent), 2005, 18(3): 211-213. DOI: 10.1080/08998280.2005.11928068.
    [20]
    HONG J, CAI Q, CUI W. Application value of 3.0 T MRCP combined with abdominal color Doppler ultrasound in the diagnosis of suspected gallstones[J]. Chin Med Herald, 2021, 18(19): 159-162. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-YYCY202119040.htm

    洪杰, 蔡琦, 崔巍. 3.0T MRCP联合腹部彩超在可疑胆囊结石诊断中的应用价值[J]. 中国医药导报, 2021, 18(19): 159-162. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-YYCY202119040.htm
    [21]
    VILA JJ, VICUÑA M, IRISARRI R, et al. Diagnostic yield and reliability of endoscopic ultrasonography in patients with idiopathic acute pancreatitis[J]. Scand J Gastroenterol, 2010, 45(3): 375-381. DOI: 10.3109/00365520903508894.
    [22]
    CHEN CC. The efficacy of endoscopic ultrasound for the diagnosis of common bile duct stones as compared to CT, MRCP, and ERCP[J]. J Chin Med Assoc, 2012, 75(7): 301-302. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcma.2012.05.002.
  • 加载中

Catalog

    通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
    • 1. 

      沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

    1. 本站搜索
    2. 百度学术搜索
    3. 万方数据库搜索
    4. CNKI搜索

    Figures(3)  / Tables(3)

    Article Metrics

    Article views (850) PDF downloads(63) Cited by()
    Proportional views
    Related

    /

    DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
    Return
    Return