Received: 18.07.2008 Accepted: 24.10.2008J Gastrointestin Liver DisMarch 2009 Vol.18 No 1, 67-71Address for correspondence: Dr. Monalisa Filip Research Center of Gastroenterology and Hepatology University of Medicine and Pharmacy Petru Rares No. 2, Craiova, Romania E-mail:monalisafilip@yahoo.com

Postcholecystectomy Syndrome - an Algorithmic Approach Monalisa Filip, Adrian Săftoiu, Carmen Popescu, Dan Ionuţ Gheonea, Sevastiţa Iordache, Larisa Săndulescu, Tudorel Ciurea

Research Center of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Medicine and Pharmacy Craiova, Romania

AbstractBackground and Aim: The postcholecystectomy

syndrome includes a heterogeneous group of diseases, usually presenting as abdominal symptoms following gallbladder removal. The clinical management of these patients is frequently without an evidence-based approach. Method: We evaluated 80 patients with postcholecystectomy problems consecutively admitted during a period of 36 months. The liver function tests (LFTs) assessment and transabdominal ultrasound (TUS) were followed by endoscopic ultrasound (EUS). Endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography (ERCP) was then performed depeding on the results. With knowledgeofthefinaldiagnosis, theprobableevaluationand outcomes were reassessed assuming that ERCP would have been performed as the initial procedure. Final diagnosis was confirmedby a combination of imagingfindings, aswell as clinical follow-up of 6 months. Results: In 53 patients biliary or pancreatic diseases were diagnosed: common bile duct stones, chronic pancreatitis, pancreatic cancer,papillarytumors,cholangiocarcinoma,insufficientcholecystectomy or sphincter of Oddi dysfunction. The other 27 patients had non-biliary symptoms (dyspepsia, IBS, etc.) and were consequently managed according to thesymptoms.ThesensitivityandspecificityofEUSwerehigh in the subgroup of patients with biliary or pancreatic symptoms (96.2% and 88.9%) and helped to indicate subsequent ERCP. Conclusion: An algorithmic approach which used EUS for the initial evaluation of the patients with postcholecystectomy problems decreased the number of ERCPs by 51%, having as a consequence a decreased morbidity and mortality in this group of patients.

Key words Endoscopic ultrasound – transbdominal ultrasound

– ERCP – postcholecystectomy syndrome - algorithm.

Introduction Postcholecystectomy syndrome (PCS) includes a

heterogeneous group of diseases, usually manifested by the presence of abdominal symptoms following gallbladder removal. Although this term is used widely in the medical literature, it is rather inaccurate, because it encompasses a large number of biliary and non-biliary disorders. The symptoms occur within a few weeks of surgery in one half of the patients and months to years later in the remainder. Thesymptomsarenonspecificandvarywiththeunderlyingetiology, but most often include right upper quadrant or epigastric pain that tends to occur following meals and to be sharp in character, jaundice or dyspeptic symptoms [1-5]. These patients are initially assessed by transabdominal ultrasound (TUS) or computed tomography, followed by endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) as the gold standard [6-8].

The aim of our study was to prospectively assess the role of a clinical algorithm that included liver function tests (LFTs) and transabdominal ultrasound (TUS), followed by endoscopic ultrasound (EUS), for the evaluation of late PCS.

MethodsWe included 80 patients with postcholecystectomy

problems consecutively admitted during a period of 36 months. Clinical symptoms included abdominal pain, rigors, jaundice or dyspepsia. The interval from cholecystectomy ranged from 1 to 60 months. The liver function tests (LFTs) analysed were serum bilirubin and serum alkaline phosphatase. A diameter of the common bile duct (CBD) of less than 10 mm was considered normal and greater than or equal to 10 mm was considered abnormal. Direct evidence of a stone in the bile duct was considered as a true positive test result, irrespective of the size of CBD.

68 Filip et al

TUS was the initial imaging test. It was performed on fasting patients in a supine and right anterior oblique position. A 3.5-5 MHz sector probe was used (ProSound 5000; Aloka Co, Ltd, Tokyo, Japan) and the diameter of the CBD was measured at the level of the right hepatic artery using electronic callipers. EUS procedures were performed by an experienced gastroenterologist with a linear echoendoscope (GF-UCT 140 AL5; Olympus Optical Co, Ltd, Tokyo, Japan) coupled with the corresponding ultrasonography system (ProSound 5000; Aloka Co, Ltd, Tokyo, Japan). ERCP was performed with a diagnostic (JF Q140; Olympus Optical Co, Ltd, Tokyo, Japan) or therapeutic (TJF Q140; Olympus Optical Co, Ltd, Tokyo, Japan) endoscope, according to usual protocols.

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography was then performed as a function of the results. With knowledge ofthefinaldiagnosis,theprobableevaluationandoutcomewere reassessed assuming that ERCP would have been performed as the initial procedure. Final diagnosis was confirmedbyacombinationofimagingfindings,cytologyand/or histology afterEUS-guidedfineneedle aspirationprocedures (EUS-FNA) or direct biopsies obtained during subsequent surgery, as well as clinical follow-up of minimum 6 months.

During EUS or ERCP, patients were placed in the left lateral decubitus position, and sedation with midazolam and/or propofol was applied.

The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value(PPV), negative predictive value (NPV) and accuracy were calculated for each of the tests (LFTs, TUS and EUS) by comparingtheresultswiththefinaldiagnosis.

ResultsThe study group comprised 32 males and 48 females,

with age between 35 and 80 years (mean 56.15±6.3). The final diagnosiswas of biliary or pancreatic diseases in53 patients (Table I). Twenty-four patients had common bile duct stones (30%), including four cases with non-dilatated CBD (Fig. 1). The rest of the patients had chronic pancreatitis, pancreatic cancer (Fig. 2), papillary tumors, cholangiocarcinoma (Fig. 3), enlarged lymphnodes, cystic

Table I. Diagnosis and examinations performed in patients with late postcholecystectomy syndromeFinal diagnosis

No. of patients

(mean ± SD)

Age(years)

Sex (male / female)

Diagnostic tests (LFTs/TUS/EUS/

ERCP)

Common bile duct stones

24 55.1±12.5 8/16 +/+/+/+

Chronic pancreatitis

6 49.5±11.8 5/1 +/+/+/-

Pancreatic cancer

2 69.7±15.5 1/1 +/+/+/-

Papillary tumors

4 47.5±8.5 3/1 +/+/+/-

Cholangio-carcinoma

2 71.5±14.5 1/1 +/+/+/+

Enlarged lymphnodes

3 58±8 1/2 +/+/+/-

Cystic duct remnant

3 57.3±3.4 -/3 +/+/+/+

Insufficientchole-cystectomy

2 57,5±7.1 -/2 +/+/+/+

Sphincter of Oddi dysfunction

7 63±12 4/3 +/+/+/+

Non-biliary symptoms

27 55.33±15.4 9/18 +/+/+/-

Fig 1. Endoscopic ultrasound of common bile duct stones with dilated common bile duct.

Fig 2. Endoscopic ultrasound image of pancreatic cancer confirmed by: (a) EUS-guided fine needleaspiration biopsy, (b) cytology analysis.

duct remnant, insufficient cholecystectomy or type 1 sphincter of Oddi dysfunction [2-7]. The other 27 patients were considered to have non-biliary symptoms (dyspepsia,

Postcholecystectomy syndrome - an algorithmic approach 69

IBD, etc.) and were consequently followed-up or managed according to the cause of the symptoms.

Analysis of serum bilirubin was the most useful LFT parameter, but had a moderate overall performance with an accuracy of only 63% (Table II). Serum alkaline phosphatase was elevated in most of our patients, with a sensitivity of 89.3%,buthadapoorspecificityforbileductdisease inpatients with postcholecystectomy pain, as well as low overall accuracy of 49.8%. TUS had an overall accuracy of 76.4%. If we correlated abnormal LFTs with TUS there was an increase in accuracy up to 90%.

obstruction can be correctly identified in up to 95%ofpatients, and the cause of obstruction can be established in up to 85% of patients, with a lower sensitivity for example for the diagnosis of choledocolithiasis (less than 50%) [10-13]. Improvement of the US devices determined recently anincreasedsensitivityandspecificityforthedetectionofcholedocolithiasis and other causes of CBD obstruction, including benign and malignant lesions [13, 14]. The distal part of the CBD, the papillary region and the retroperitoneum aredifficult toexaminatebyTUSdue to thepresenceofgas in the overlying bowel. However, an abrupt change in the calibre of the bile duct from dilated to normal is highly suggestive for the presence of malignant obstruction, while gradual tapering is usually consistent with benign stenoses [14, 15]. The recent introduction of tissue harmonic imaging techniques allowed a better visualization of the common bile duct and its content, with a probable improvement in the quality of TUS diagnosis [16]. In our study, using the level of 10 mm CBD diameter for bile duct abnormalities, TUS alonehadamoderatesensitivity,specificityandaccuracy.The use of TUS resulted in 19 incorrect results, with 7 false-positive and 12 false-negative.

The EUS of the pancreatico-biliary system made significantadvances,beingabletovisualizetheextrahepaticbiliary tree and the head of the pancreas from the second part of duodenum with great accuracy in the majority of patients [7]. The method is limited only in patients with duodenal stenoses or surgical anastomoses, as well as in the presence of previous biliary sphincterectomy or bile duct stents, which can induce artifacts due to the presence of air in the bile ducts [17].Utility ofEUS imagingwas confirmed in differentstudieswhichassessedthespecificroleforthediagnosisofpancreatico-biliary diseases [18-20]. Small common bile duct stones (< 3-4 mm diameter) can be observed with an accuracy of up to 98%, slightly better than ERCP, even in the absence of posterior acoustic shadowing [18, 20]. In patients with pancreatic cancer, linear EUS allows the performance of fine needle aspiration biopsy, with cytological or microhistological examination. The procedure has a superior accuracy as compared with brush cytology performed during ERCP [21, 22]. Besides diagnosis, EUS also allows staging of pancreatic carcinoma, cholangiocarcinoma and ampullary tumors. It has a number of advantages over ERCP because duct cannulation is not required. The failure rate is lower, there is minimal risk of inducing acute pancreatitis and there is no radiation exposure. Nevertheless, EUS is not as widely available, it requires sedation, and has no therapeutic role in choledocholithiasis [23-28]. False-negative results may appear in case of intrahepatic or hilar lithiasis due to the limited penetration of ultrasound. In our cases there were three false-positive results and two false-negative. Again, it should be emphasized that the false-positive results were caused by small stones (< 4-5 mm), which either passed spontaneously before ERCP or were missed by ERCP due to contrast drowning. In this context the false positive results might have been probably misjudged, due to the continuous controversy on the best gold standard (EUS

Fig 3. Endoscopic ultrasound image of a cholangiocarcinoma with complete portal vein thrombosis,confirmedbyEUS-guidedfineneedleaspiration biopsy with cytology analysis. .

Table II. Receiver operating characteristics of different tests used for the diagnosis of late postcholecystectomy syndromeTest Sensiti-

vity(%)

Specifi-city(%)

Negative predictive

value (%)

Positive predictive

value (%)

Accuracy(%)

Bilirubin 51.3 70.7 67.9 62.9 63

Alkaline phospha-tase

89.3 27.3 85.7 42.4 49.8

TUS 77.3 74 62.5 85.4 76.5

EUS 96.2 88.9 92.3 94.4 93.7

The sensitivity and specificity ofEUSfindingswerehigh in the subgroup of patients with biliary or pancreatic symptoms (96.2% and 88.9%) and helped to decide subsequent ERCP. Moreover, EUS had a high NPV of 92.3% and PPV of 94.4%, with an overall accuracy of 93.7%. Based on EUS results we were able to avoid unnecessary ERCP in 41 patients, thus decreasing the number of ERCPs by 51%.

Discussion TransabdominalUS(TUS)isthefirstimagingprocedure

used for the initial evaluation of the patients with postcholecystectomy problems because it is a noninvasive, rapid method and presently widely accessible, being capable of differentiating between non-obstructive and obstructive jaundice [9]. Recent studies suggest that the level of

70 Filip et al

versus ERCP).MRCP is able to demonstrate the level and presence

of biliary obstruction with a sensitivity of 95% and a specificityof97%,beinglesssensitivefordetectingstones,especially less than 6 mm in size [29]. The major advantage is the noninvasiveness of the procedure. It does not require conscious sedation, intravenous contrast or radiation exposure, while diagnostic images can be obtained in the majority of patients, including those who have complex bilio-enteric anastomoses. A recent meta-analysis demonstrated that,with respect to sensitivity, specificity and accuracy,therewasnostatisticallysignificantdifferencebetweenEUSand MRCP for the detection of choledocholithiasis [30]. However, MRCP is known to produce false-positive results, especially at the distal end of the CBD due to a prominent or spasmoticpapillarysphincter,whilethespecificityislowerthan of EUS for pancreatic tumors and ampullary lesions [3]. Secretin-stimulated MRCP uses intravenous secretin to relax the sphincter ofOddi and stimulate theflowofpancreatic exocrine juice and bile, in order to better delineate pancreatic and bile duct [31]. Due to logistic reasons and limited availability during the study period, MRCP was not systematically done in our patients. Moreover, secretin is not yet available in Romania.

ERCP is probably the most accurate test whenever it is technicallysuccessful.Ithasahighsensitivityandspecificity(100 and 95.2%), allowing the visualization of the papilla, pancreas and biliary system. Whenever pathology is found it permits tissue diagnosis and therapeutic interventions [27, 28, 32, 33]. However, ERCP is associated with a significantrateofcomplications.Acutepancreatitisisthemost common complication, with an incidence of about 5% in low risk patients and 40% in high risk patients. Most patients experience mild pancreatitis, while severe diseases with pancreatic necrosis, multi-organ failure, prolonged hospitalization and death is seen in less than 1% of the patients [34-37]. In our study, the use of EUS for the evaluationofthepatientswithPCSsignificantlydecreasedthe number of ERCPs by 51%, thus reducing the overall morbidity and mortality induced by an invasive procedure. After the initial evaluation, 7 patients were diagnosed with type 1 sphincter of Oddi dysfunction. Due to the high-risk of acute pancreatitis induced by sphincter of Oddi manometry, these patients were referred for ERCP with sphincterotomy directly since they were likely to have a clinical improvement regardlessofmanometricfindings[38].

Based on our study we suggest the following algorithm in patients with postcholecystectomy syndrome: TUS should remainthefirstinvestigationinconjunctionwithLFTs.IftheCBD size is < 10 mm and LFTs are normal, further EUS or ERCP is not recommended. If CBD stones are demonstrated during TUS, patients should immediately undergo ERCP, and EUS is not necessary. EUS should be performed in patients withadilatedCBDonTUS(≥10mm)and/orelevatedLFTs,withoutanidentifiablecause.Itshighsensitivityfordetectionof bile duct abnormalities can select patients appropriately for ERCP. Thus, ERCP should only be performed when an

indication for endoscopic treatment is shown on either TUS or EUS (Fig. 4).

There are, however, limitations in our study. Due to the small sample size of patients, there is a considerable amount of uncertainty in the estimates of sensitivity, specificityand accuracy. A larger study population is necessary to be fullyconfidentofthebenefitsofthesuggesteddiagnosticalghorithm. This could be accomplished in the setting of a large prospective, multicentric study. Another limitation consisted of the limited availability of MRCP, which precluded a direct comparison with EUS. Consequently, MRCP was not included in the proposed diagnostic algorithm.

In conclusion, an algorithmic approach which used EUS for the initial evaluation of the patients with postcholecystectomy problems decreased the number of ERCPs by 51%, having as a consequence a decreased morbidity and mortality in this group of patients.

Acknowledgment The paper was supported through the research grant 41-

010/2007 “Optimization of early diagnosis and treatment of malignant stenoses of biliary tract using intraductal ultrasonography with miniprobe, microarray techniques and neoadjuvant photodinamic therapy (LASENDO)”, and grant 239/2007 “Role of endoscopic ultrasound and optical coherence tomography for the minimal-invasive assessment of neo-angiogenesis in digestive cancer patients (OCTEUS)”, bothfinancedbytheNationalAgencyofScientificResearch,Romanian Ministry of Education and Research.

Conflicts of interestNone to declare.

References 1. Deziel DJ. Complication of cholecystectomy. Incidence, clinical

manifestations, and diagnosis. Surg Clin North Am 1994; 74: 809-823.

2. Zhou PH, Liu FL, Yao LQ, Qin XY. Endoscopic diagnosis and treatment of post-cholecystectomy syndrome. Hepatobilliary Pancreat Dis Int 2003; 2: 117-120.

Fig 4. Algorithm for diagnosis of late postcholecystectomy syndrome (PCS).

Postcholecystectomy syndrome - an algorithmic approach 71

3. Terhaar OA, Abbas S, Thornton FJ, et al. Imaging patients with “post-cholecystectomy syndrome”: an alghorithmic approach. Clin Radiol 2005; 60: 78-84.

4. Shaw C, O’Hanlon DM, Fenlon HM, McEntee GP. Cystic duct remnant and the “post-cholecystectomy syndrome”. Hepatogastroenterology 2004; 51: 36-38.

5. Madacsy L, Fejes R, Kurucsai G, et al. Characterization of functional billiary pain and dyspeptic symptoms in patients with sphincter Oddi dysfunction: effect of papillotomy. World J Gastroenterol 2006; 12: 6850-6856.

6. Foley WD, Quiroz FA. The role of sonography in imaging of the biliary tract. Ultrasound Q. 2007; 23: 123-135.

7. Lambert R, Caletti G, Cho E, et al. International Workshop on the clinical impact of endoscopic ultrasound in gastroenterology. Endoscopy 2000; 32: 549-584.

8. Varghese JC, Farrell MA, Courtney G, Osborne H, Murray FE, Lee MJ. Role of MR cholangiopancreatography in patients with failed or inadequate ERCP. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1999; 173: 1527-1533.

9. Rogoveanu I, Gheonea DI, Saftoiu A, Ciurea T. The role of imaging methods in identifying the causes of extrahepatic cholestasis. J Gastrointestin Liver Dis 2006; 15: 265-271.

10. GandolfiL,TorresanF,SolmiL,PuccettiA.Theroleofultrasoundin biliary and pancreaatic diseases. Eur J Ultrasound 2003; 16: 141-159.

11. Eisen GM, Dominitz JA, Faigel DO, et al; American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Standards of Practice Committee An annotated algorithmic approach to malignant biliary obstruction. Gastrointest Endosc 2001; 53: 849-852.

12. Parulekar SG. Gallbladder and bile ducts. In: Diagnostic Ultrasound: A Logical Approach. McGahan JP, Goldberg BB, Lippincott Raven Publishers 1997; 22: 1017-1056.

13. Baron RL, Tublin ME, Peterson MS. Imaging the spectrum of biliary tract disease. Radiol Clin North Am 2002; 40: 1325-1354.

14. Saini S. Imaging of the hepatobiliary tract. N Engl J Med 1997; 336: 1889-1894.

15. Pasanen PA, Partanen K, Pikkarainen P, Alhava E, Pirinen A, Janatuinen E. Diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound, computed tomography, and endoscopic retrograde colangiopancreatography in the detection of obstructive jaundice. Scand J Gastroenterol 1991; 26: 1157-1164.

16. Ortega D, Burns PN, Hope Simpson D, Wilson SR. Tissue harmonic imaging: is it a benefit for bile duct sonography? AJR Am J Roentgenol 2001; 176 :653-549.

17. Stewart CJ, Mills PR, Carter R, et al. Brush cytology in the assessment of pancreatico-biliary strictures: a review of 406 cases. J Clin Pathol 2001; 54: 449-455.

18. Amouyal P, Amouyal G, Lévy P, et al. Diagnosis of choledocholithiasis by endoscopic ultrasonography. Gastroenterology 1994; 106: 1062-1067.

19. Burtin P, Palazzo L, Canard JM, Person B, Oberti F, Boyer J. Diagnosticstrategiesforextrahepaticcholestasisofindefiniteorigin:endoscopic ultrasonography or retrograde cholangiography? Results of a prospective study. Endoscopy 1997; 29: 349-355.

20. Ney MV, Maluf-Filho F, Sakai P, Zilberstein B, Gama-Rodrigues J, Rosa H. Echo-endoscopy versus endoscopic retrograde colangiographyforthediagnosisofcholedocholithiasis:theinfluenceof the size of the stone and diameter of the common bile duct. Arq Gastroenterol 2005; 42: 239-243.

21. Erickson RA, Garza AA. EUS with EUS-guided fine-needle

aspirationasthefirstendoscopictestfotheevaluationofobstructivejaundice. Gastrointest Endosc 2001; 53: 475-484.

22. Stewart CJ, Mills PR, Carter R et al. Brush cytology in the assessment of pancreatico-biliary strictures: a review of 406 cases. J Clin Pathol 2001; 54: 449-455.

23. Mesenas SJ. Does the advent of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) sound the death knell for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP)? Ann Acad Med Singapore 2006; 35: 89-95.

24. Sung JJ. Endoscopic ultrasonography and magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography in abdominal pain: what makes sense? Endoscopy 2001; 33: 705-708.

25. Palazzo L, O’toole D. EUS in common bile duct stones. Gastrointest Endosc 2002; 56: S49-S57.

26. Kohut M, Nowakowska-Dulawa E, Marek T, Kaczor R, Nowak A. Accuracy of linear endoscopic ultrasonography in the evaluation of patients with suspected common bile duct stones. Endoscopy 2002; 34: 299-303.

27. Palazzo L, Girollet PP, Salmeron M, et al. Value of endoscopic ultrasonography in the diagnosis of common bile duct stones: comparison with surgical exploration and ERCP. Gastrointest Endosc 1995; 42: 225-231.

28. Buscarini E, Tansini P, Vallisa D, Zambelli A, Buscarini L. EUS forsuspectedcholedocholithiasis:dothebenefitsoutweighcosts?A prospectiv, controlled study. Gastrointest Endosc 2003; 57: 510-518.

29. Tse F, Barkun JS, Romagnulo J, Friedman G, Bornstein JD, Barkun AN. Nonoperative imaging tehniques in suspected biliary tract obstruction. HPB (Oxford) 2006; 8: 409-425.

30. Ledro-Cano D. Suspected choledocholithiasis: endoscopic ultrasound or magnetic resonance colangio-pancreatography? A sistematic review. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2007; 19: 1007-1011.

31. Pereira SP,GillamsA, SgourosNS,WebsterGJ,HatfieldAR.Prospective comparison of secretin-stimulated magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography with manometry in the diagnosis of sphincter of Oddi dysfunction types II and III. Gut 2007; 56: 809-813.

32. 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. Lancet 1996; 347: 75-79.

33. Snady H, Cooperman A, Siegel J. Endoscopic ultrasonography compared with computed tomography with ERCP in patients with obstructive jaundice or small peri-pancreatic mass. Gastrointest Endosc 1992; 38: 27-34.

34. Dancygier H, Nattermann C. The role of endoscopic ultrasonography in biliary tract disease: obstructive jaundice. Endoscopy 1994; 26: 800-802.

35. Lieb JG 2nd, Draganov P. Early successes and late failures in the prevention of post endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. World J Gastroenterol 2007; 13: 3567-3574.

36. Masci E, Toti G, Mariani A, et al. Complications of diagnostic and therapeutic ERCP: a prospective multicenter study. Am J Gastroenterol 2001; 96: 417-423.

37. Barthet M, Lesavre N, Desjeux A, et al. Complications of endoscopic sphincterotomy: results from a single tertiary referral center. Endoscopy 2002; 34: 991-997.

38. Sugawa C, Park DH, Lucas CE, Higuchi D, Ukawa K. Endoscopic sphincterotomy for stenosis of the sphincter of Oddi. Surg Endosc 2001; 15: 1004-1007.