Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from https://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00535-023-02014-6 below:

Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for cholelithiasis 2021

The Japanese Society of Gastroenterology first published evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for cholelithiasis in 2010, followed by a revision in 2016. Currently, the revised third edition was published to reflect recent evidence on the diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis of cholelithiasis conforming to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system. Following this revision, the present English version of the guidelines was updated and published herein. The clinical questions (CQ) in the previous version were reviewed and rearranged into three newly divided categories: background questions (BQ) dealing with basic background knowledge, CQ, and future research questions (FRQ), which refer to issues that require further accumulation of evidence. Finally, 52 questions (29 BQs, 19 CQs, and 4 FRQs) were adopted to cover the epidemiology, pathogenesis, diagnosis, treatment, complications, and prognosis. Based on a literature search using MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and Igaku Chuo Zasshi databases for the period between 1983 and August 2019, along with a manual search of new information reported over the past 5 years, the level of evidence was evaluated for each CQ. The strengths of recommendations were determined using the Delphi method by the committee members considering the body of evidence, including benefits and harms, patient preference, and cost–benefit balance. A comprehensive flowchart was prepared for the diagnosis and treatment of gallbladder stones, common bile duct stones, and intrahepatic stones, respectively. The current revised guidelines are expected to be of great assistance to gastroenterologists and general physicians in making decisions on contemporary clinical management for cholelithiasis patients.

Since the decision made by the Japanese Society of Gastroenterology (JSGE) in 2005 to publish evidence-based guidelines for clinically significant common gastrointestinal disorder, 11 clinical practice guidelines have been published. Cholelithiasis was selected as one of the target diseases, and the first edition of “Clinical practice guidelines for the treatment of cholelithiasis” was published in 2009, based on a literature search using the Igaku Chuo Zasshi, PubMed, and Cochrane library from 1983 to 2007. Some of the recommendations and statements, however, were determined by referring to old data or expert opinions due to the lack of available evidence. In 2016, its revised second edition, titled “Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for the treatment of cholelithiasis”, was published with the cooperation of the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society and Japan Biliary Association, including new evidence published between 2007 and June 2012 [1].

Currently, following the JSGE policy of revising the guidelines every 5 years as necessary, the third revision has been issued to cover new insights after the publication of the second edition. This revision was carried out following the Minds Manual for Clinical Practice Development [2].

The committee of clinical practice guidelines for cholelithiasis consists of two subcommittees, namely, the development and evaluation committees, with refined new members. The former prepared and refined the draft and determined the final version by taking the suggestions of the latter into consideration.

In the current edition, the items to deal with are divided into three categories: clinical questions (CQs), core CQs, background questions (BQs), knowledge or practice that has been widely accepted, and future research questions (FRQs) which are questions that lack robust evidence at present and require further research to address a recommendation. Through discussions among committee members, eventually, 52 questions (29 BQs, 19 CQs, and 4 FRQs) were adopted covering the epidemiology, pathogenesis, diagnosis, treatments, complications, and prognosis.

A literature search was performed in the same manner as in the second revision, extending the search period to August 2019. A supplemental manual search was also carried out by each committee member, and some latest articles published after the above-mentioned period were also included in the reference as necessary. Structured abstracts were prepared for the CQs and FRQs, and the quality of evidence for each article was ranked as follows: A, high; B, moderate; C, low; and D, very low. [3]

The strengths of recommendations were determined by assessing the body of evidence using not only the data-driven approach but also patient preferences and cost–benefit balance according to voting by the committee members. Consensus was defined in advance as the acquisition of votes 70% or over [4], and the consensus rate was shown following each recommendation.

The present article summarizes the new guidelines to support gastroenterologists and general physicians in decision-making on the clinical management of cholelithiasis patients providing comprehensive statements for BQs and commentary, along with recommendations/statements for CQs and FRQ.

There are no data showing recent trends in the prevalence of cholelithiasis in Japan. However, it is assumed to have increased with the increasing obese population, which is a risk factor for cholelithiasis.

– The incidence of intrahepatic stones has decreased in recent years but has been increasing again with the increase in biliary surgery.

These statements were made with reference to the following information and papers [5,6,7,8,9,10,11].

• The formation of cholesterol gallstones is associated with the supersaturation of cholesterol in bile, crystallization, and decreased contractility of the gallbladder. Such conditions can be caused by excessive calorie and animal fat intake, hyperlipidemia, oral contraceptive use, prolonged fasting, dieting, decreased intestinal motility, obesity, and so on.

• The main cause of calcium bilirubinate stones is biliary infection. Cholestasis is also associated with the formation.

• The formation of black stones is presumed to be due, in part, to an increase in unconjugated bilirubin in bile owing to an excessive supply of bilirubin. Such a condition can be caused by hemolytic diseases such as hereditary spherocytosis and thalassemia, Crohn's disease, and ileal resection. Stones of this kind are also seen in liver cirrhosis.

These statements were made with reference to the following information and papers [12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19].

• Forty (years of age), female, fatty, fair, and fertile (so-called “5 Fs”) remain strong risk factors. In addition, dyslipidemia, previous upper gastrointestinal surgery and bariatric surgery, and diet are also considered to increase the risk of gallbladder stones.

These statements were made with reference to the following information and paper [15, 20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48]

• Approximately 70% of patients with gallbladder stone disease are found asymptomatic and often remain asymptomatic. In asymptomatic gallstones, the cumulative symptomatic rate over a 10 year period is estimated to be about 10–20%. In addition, there have occasionally been reports of cases in which biliary calculi have disappeared asymptomatically. Since obesity and lifestyle-related diseases are risk factors for gallbladder stones, higher cumulative mortality from cardiovascular disease, cancer, and diabetes has been reported in patients with gallbladder stones.

This statement was made with reference to the following information and papers [49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59].

• There is no clear evidence that gallbladder stones are a risk factor for gallbladder cancer.

(Recommendation: none, 100% agreed, evidence level D).

It is well known that patients with gallbladder cancer have gallbladder stones at a high rate (69–96%) [60]. Many case–control studies have been reported on the association between gallbladder stones and gallbladder cancer [61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76]. Although the relative risks vary from 2.3 to 34.4, gallbladder stones have been reported to be a risk factor for gallbladder cancer. In particular, patients with large stones [61] [76], numerous stones [71] [73], non-cholesterol stones (mixed stones), symptoms [70], and a long symptomatic period [71] reportedly have a high risk of gallbladder cancer. Three previous cohort studies showed a higher incidence of gallbladder cancer in patients with gallbladder stones than in normal controls (relative risk, 3.01–6.1) with a median follow-up period of 6.1–13.3 years [77,78,79]. A meta-analysis of three cohort studies and seven case–control studies also showed that gallstones were the strongest risk factor for gallstone cancer, with a relative risk of 4.9 [80]. In contrast, a large cohort study of 113,394 patients with a history of gallbladder stones/cholecystitis who were followed-up for 11 years showed a hazard ratio of 1.07, which suggests a negative impact of gallbladder stones on the occurrence of gallbladder cancer [81]. Based on these results, there is no dispute regarding the relationship, in some way, between gallbladder stones and gallbladder cancer. However, it is still difficult to determine whether gallbladder stones are the cause of gallbladder cancer, or whether they are more likely to form during the development of gallbladder cancer because the incidence of gallbladder cancer in patients with gallbladder stones is extremely low, and there is also controversial negative evidence.

Porcelain gallbladder and atrophic gallbladder have been considered high-risk factors for gallbladder cancer. However, a recent systematic review revealed that their roles as risk factors were not as significant as previously suggested [82,83,84,85].

• Hepatolithiasis is a strong risk factor for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinomas.

This statement was made with reference to the following information and papers [86,87,88,89,90,91,92,93,94,95,96,97,98,99,100,101,102,103,104,105,106,107,108,109,110,111,112,113,114,115,116].

Gallbladder stones (see Fig. 1).

Flowchart for diagnosis of gallbladder stones

• Most cases of gallbladder stones are asymptomatic; however, characteristic abdominal pain, nausea, and vomiting may occur during an attack. Fever is also observed in cases of associated acute cholecystitis.

This statement was made with reference to the following information and papers [56, 117,118,119,120].

• Abdominal ultrasound (US) and blood tests are performed in cases with symptoms suggestive of gallbladder stones. In cases of poor visualization of the gallbladder or indeterminate US findings, suspected cholangitis/bile duct stones, Mirizzi syndrome, confluence stones, or concomitant gallbladder cancer, abdominal computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)/magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP), and/or endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) are recommended. (Fig. 1)

This statement was made with reference to the following information and papers [121,122,123,124,125].

• The diagnosis of acute cholecystitis is based on local clinical signs, systemic inflammatory findings, and diagnostic imaging. Severity is assessed based on organ dysfunction and local inflammatory findings. (Fig. 2)

Flowchart for diagnosis of acute cholecystitis

This statement was made with reference to the following information and papers [126,127,128,129,130,131,132,133,134,135,136,137,138,139,140,141].

Flowchart for diagnosis of common bile duct stones

• Patients with CBDS often present with symptoms such as abdominal pain, back pain, fever, jaundice, and nausea/vomiting but are sometimes asymptomatic.

These statements were made with reference to the following information and papers [10, 142, 143].

• In patients with suspected CBDS, abdominal US, abdominal CT, and/or MRI/MRCP are performed as appropriate. When these tests are indeterminate, EUS is suggested. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is recommended if symptoms relevant to acute cholangitis are present. (Fig. 3)

This statement was made based on the following information and papers [142, 144,145,146,147,148,149,150,151,152,153].

• EUS prior to ERCP is suggested in patients with suspected CBDS when other diagnostic images are indeterminate.

(Recommendation: weak, 100% agreed, evidence level B).

EUS is known to have a high diagnostic capability for CBDS because of its high spatial resolution. According to a meta-analysis evaluating the diagnostic capability of EUS for CBDS, the sensitivity, and specificity were 0.94 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.93–0.96) and 0.95 (95% CI 0.94–0.96), respectively [150]. Another meta-analysis compared the diagnostic capability of EUS and MRCP for CBDS, reporting that the sensitivities of EUS and MRCP were 0.97 (95% CI 0.91–0.99) and 0.87 (95% CI 0.80–0.93) (p = 0.006), specificities were 0.90 (95% CI 0.83–0.94) and 0.92 (95% CI 0.87–0.96) (p = 0.42), and the diagnostic odds ratios were 162.5 (95% CI 54.0–489.3) and 79.0 (95% CI 23.8–262.2) (p = 0.008), respectively [154]. Both EUS and MRCP showed a high diagnostic capability for CBDS, but the diagnostic odds ratio was significantly superior with EUS, which was considered to be due to the high sensitivity of EUS in detecting small stones [154]. EUS is also useful in diagnosing CBDS in patients with suspected biliary pancreatitis [155, 156].

A meta-analysis of four randomized controlled trials (RCTs) compared the efficacy of performing EUS prior to ERCP (EUS-first strategy) with direct ERCP (ERCP-first strategy) in patients with suspected CBDS [157], reporting that the EUS-first strategy could omit ERCP in 67.1% of the patients; however, the number of procedures in the EUS-first strategy was significantly higher than that in the ERCP-first approach (relative risk [RR] 2.46, 95% CI 1.34–4.52; p = 0.004) since ERCP was performed after EUS. As for safety, the EUS-first strategy significantly reduced the risks of overall adverse events (RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.20–0.62) and post-procedure pancreatitis (RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.06–0.83). EUS prior to ERCP in patients with suspected CBDS allows for omitting unnecessary ERCP and reduces the risk of adverse events. However, the limited availability of EUS is a problem because of the necessity of an experienced endosonographer.

CBDSs include primary and secondary stones migrating from the gallbladder. It is generally believed that calcium bilirubinate stones are formed in the common bile duct (CBD), while cholesterol and black stones are formed in the gallbladder. However, because stones formed in the gallbladder undergo further modification after migrating into the CBD [158], it is difficult to determine whether CBDSs are formed in the CBD or gallbladder in clinical practice. A study on the correlation between CBDS and CBD diameter showed that the diameter of the CBD was significantly larger in patients with primary stones than in those with secondary stones, but this has not been widely accepted because of the small number of cases in this study.

From a therapeutic point of view, the method of bile duct stone removal is independent of the stone type, whether endoscopic or surgical. It has been pointed out that endoscopic treatment even with small-incision endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) or balloon dilation may impair papillary function to a certain degree, leading to possible increased retrograde infection from the duodenal papilla and recurrence of common bile duct stones [158, 159]. On the other hand, laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) does not impair papillary function and is considered appropriate, especially for younger patients due to the reduced risk of ascending cholangitis.

Stone diseases are benign, and long-term follow-up is necessary. Accumulation of data on the nature of removed stones and continued follow-up may facilitate making an adequate selection of treatment options.

These statements were made with reference to the following information and papers [158, 159].

Flowchart for diagnosis of hepatolithiasis

• Abdominal pain, fever, and jaundice are often observed in patients with hepatolithiasis; however, the number of asymptomatic patients has been increasing.

This statement was made with reference to the following information and papers [160,161,162].

• – When hepatolithiasis is suspected, minimally invasive modalities, including blood examination, US, CT, MRI, and MRCP, are performed. Furthermore, measurement of tumor markers is recommended to assess the risk of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma.

• – If intrahepatic stones are visualized and intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma is suspected, a detailed examination to diagnose intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma should be performed.

• – In symptomatic cases or when intrahepatic stones cannot be visualized, direct cholangiography, bile duct cytology, and cholangioscopy are recommended, considering the comorbidity of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma.

These statements were made with reference to the following information and papers [11, 160, 161, 163, 164]. (Fig. 4).

Gallbladder stones (see Fig. 5).

Flowchart for treatment of gallbladder stones

• After initial treatment, such as adequate intravenous fluid infusion and administration of antibiotics and analgesics, further treatment should be performed based on the severity of acute cholecystitis.

This statement was made with reference to the following information and papers [165,166,167,168,169,170,171,172,173].

• Butylscopolamine, flopropione, and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs are used to treat attacks.

• Oral ursodeoxycholic acid is an option for prophylaxis against attacks.

• Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) and oral chemical dissolution therapy have been used for the treatment of gallbladder stones but have rarely been performed in recent years.

These statements were made with reference to the following information and papers [119, 174,175,176,177,178,179,180,181,182,183].

• Cholecystectomy should be considered for patients at high risk of gallbladder cancer.

(Recommendation: weak, 100% agreed, evidence level C).

Asymptomatic gallbladder stones are increasingly being detected due to the widespread use of medical examinations and advances in diagnostic imaging. It is estimated that 2–4% of asymptomatic gallbladder stones become symptomatic within 1 year of diagnosis [184, 185]. Two-thirds of asymptomatic patients are expected to remain asymptomatic for the remainder of their lives. Asymptomatic gallstones have a 0.3% chance of developing acute cholecystitis, 0.2% risk of leading to obstructive jaundice, and 0.04–1.5% risk of developing acute pancreatitis; however, Development of gallstone ileus is rare [186].

It is well known that the frequency of gallbladder cancer complicated by gallbladder calculus is as high as 40–70% [83]. However, the incidence of gallbladder cancer associated with cholelithiasis is approximately 0.1–0.5%, although the rate varies in available reports [85]. Furthermore, the incidence of gallbladder cancer from asymptomatic gallbladder stones is reported to be rare (0–0.5%) [187]. In addition, a decision analysis model showed that prophylactic cholecystectomy for patients with asymptomatic gallbladder stones did not improve their prognosis, including death from gallbladder cancer [188]. Generally, prophylactic cholecystectomy is in consideration of the possibility of developing gallbladder cancer and is not recommended for patients with asymptomatic gallbladder stones. However, cholecystectomy should be considered in patients at high risk of gallbladder cancer. The high-risk groups for gallbladder cancer include patients with stones larger than 3 cm, polyps larger than 10 mm, porcelain gallbladder, thickened gallbladder walls, and stone-filled gallbladders [50, 83, 85, 186, 189].

During follow-up, it is recommended to explain to the patients the risk of developing symptoms, acute cholecystitis, and gallbladder cancer, and the necessity to perform periodic examinations, such as abdominal US.

• Cholecystectomy should be performed if gallbladder cancer is suspected based on the morphology of the thickened gallbladder wall and the course of the disease. However, it is difficult to distinguish and rule out the presence of gallbladder cancer from images; therefore, the indication for surgery in this condition should be established in future studies.

If no gallbladder is visualized or an atrophic gallbladder is found on imaging studies, it may be due to a hypoplastic gallbladder, chronic cholecystitis, or biliary gastrointestinal fistulas [190,191,192].

Chronic cholecystitis and biliary gastrointestinal fistulas are often associated with gallbladder stones, and it has been reported that 5.6% of the patients operated on for asymptomatic gallbladder stones have grossly atrophic gallbladders [193]. In biliary gastrointestinal fistulas, a sudden disappearance of symptoms associated with gallbladder stones (e.g., pain and jaundice) is often observed. In addition to stones, ulcers and malignant tumors of the gallbladder may cause fistulas. On imaging, an atrophic gallbladder is sometimes found to be associated with biliary emphysema [192].

The frequency of gallbladder cancer in patients with atrophic gallbladders is unknown. In a case series, 4.4% of the surgical cases of atrophic gallbladder were reported to have gallbladder cancer [194]. An atrophic gallbladder with stones has been considered an indication for cholecystectomy as a high-risk group for gallbladder cancer because the gallbladder wall is difficult to observe and evaluate entirely due to stones filling the lumen [83, 195]. In contrast, it has been suggested that an atrophic gallbladder is a condition in which the epithelium of the gallbladder has been abolished due to chronic cholecystitis; therefore, it is unlikely to become symptomatic or develop gallbladder cancer [85]. As it is difficult to diagnose or rule out the presence of gallbladder cancer from diagnostic imaging in atrophic gallbladders, cholecystectomy may be considered to rule out malignant tumors based on the degree of thickening of the gallbladder wall and the course of the disease. In general, a wall thickening of 3 mm is considered the upper limit of normal, but localized or diffuse irregular thickening is also included in the indication for surgery [196]. In addition, tumor markers and FDG-PET findings are used in clinical practice to determine the indications for surgery. Increased difficulty in surgery with an atrophic gallbladder or biliary gastrointestinal fistula should be kept in mind [197].

• Laparoscopic cholecystectomy is recommended for symptomatic gallbladder stones.

(Recommendation: strong, 91% agreed, evidence level C).

Among patients with symptomatic gallbladder stones, 1–3% of the patients with mild symptoms develop severe symptoms or complications (i.e., acute cholecystitis/acute cholangitis, jaundice, and/or pancreatitis) within 1 year. The annual rate of patients with moderate symptoms who develop severe symptoms and undergo surgery is 6–8%, and this rate has decreased over time [55].

After nonoperative treatment of acute cholecystitis, emergency surgery due to flare-ups of symptoms while waiting for an elective cholecystectomy occurs in 6–23% of the cases [198]. In elderly patients, cholecystectomy is preferable if the patient's general condition is judged to be amenable to surgery because sudden recurrence is not uncommon, sometimes in more severe forms, after a long asymptomatic period. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy is a safe and useful treatment for symptomatic gallbladder stones in the absence of acute cholecystitis [199].

Complications associated with laparoscopic cholecystectomy include bile duct injury, bleeding, and injury to other organs. According to the results of a questionnaire survey by the Japanese Society for Endoscopic Surgery in 2017, bile duct injury, bleeding requiring laparotomy, and injury to other organs occurred in approximately 0.4%, 0.3%, and 0.3% of all laparoscopic cholecystectomies, respectively [200].

In a gastrointestinal quality of life index study of symptomatic patients with gallbladder stones, excluding those with acute cholecystitis, pancreatitis, and common bile duct stones, laparoscopic cholecystectomy was reported to significantly improve the quality of life of patients [201].

Systemic treatment using antibacterial agents should be performed first in cases of severe cholecystitis.

• Early cholecystectomy by a skilled surgeon is recommended in a tertiary medical institution for patients who have undergone surgery.

(Recommendation: weak, 91% agreed, evidence level B).

• If a patient cannot withstand emergent/early surgery, early gallbladder drainage is recommended.

(Recommendation: strong, 100% agreed, evidence level A).

For severe acute cholecystitis with organ failure, systemic or local treatment alone is not recommended [202]. Biliary drainage or surgery should be performed to control local infection along with systemic treatments, such as the administration of antibacterial agents and supportive care for organ failure, depending on the severity of organ failure.

Early cholecystectomy is recommended if organ failure can be controlled. However, mortality is significantly higher in patients with severe acute cholecystitis and critical organ failure, including central nervous system disorder, respiratory dysfunction, and jaundice [203]. According to the Tokyo guidelines 2018, patients with mild-to-moderate cholecystitis, that is, those with an age-adjusted Charlson’s comorbidity index ≥ 6 points, and American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status score ≥ 3 points were included in the high-risk surgery group. Patients with severe acute cholecystitis should be treated at an institute with an intensive care unit. For surgical intervention, laparoscopic cholecystectomy should be performed by skilled endoscopic surgeons.

• Percutaneous transhepatic gallbladder drainage (PTGBD) is recommended in cases of acute cholecystitis.

(Recommendation: strong, 100% agreed, evidence level B).

• Endoscopic gallbladder drainage is proposed for patients with coagulopathy, patients receiving antithrombotic agents, and those with ascites by a skilled endoscopist.

(Recommendation: weak, 100% agreed, evidence level B).

There are several methods for gallbladder drainage for acute cholecystitis, such as PTGBD, percutaneous transhepatic gallbladder aspiration, and endoscopic gallbladder drainage, including transpapillary gallbladder drainage (ETGBD) and EUS-guided gallbladder drainage (EUS-GBD). Table 1 presents the published clinical results for each drainage procedure. PTGBD is recommended for high-surgical risk patients because of its high success rate (technical success, 97–100%; clinical success, 89.3–97.6%) and its safety (complication rate, 3–39.5%) in previously published data and because of the simplicity of the technique [173, 204,205,206,207,208,209,210,211,212,213,214]. In contrast, ETGBD has been performed as an alternative treatment at skilled pancreatobiliary endoscopic institutions with a lower success rate (technical: 81–96%, clinical: 75–93%) than PTGBD [173, 211,212,213,214]. Therefore, ETGBD is considered the treatment of choice for patients with suspected CBDS, coagulation abnormalities, antithrombotic medications, ascites accumulation, and other conditions that make PTGBD difficult to perform, as well as for patients with a high risk of PTGBD-related complications to control acute cholecystitis. There have been few reports on the management of acute cholecystitis with coagulation abnormalities or anticoagulant use. Guidelines on interventional radiology allow the performance of PTGBD with single-agent aspirin when the risk of thromboembolism is high [215]. However, the Japanese DPC data reported that PTGBD is associated with a significantly higher risk of bleeding in patients with cholecystitis who are taking antithrombotic drugs. These data should be kept in mind, and a sufficient explanation about the risk of bleeding should be provided to the patient prior to performing PTGBD [216].

Although EUS-GBD is a relatively new technique with reportedly high technical and clinical success rates (90–100%), institutions performing this procedure are limited [173, 211, 212, 214]. Recently, three new systematic reviews of EUS-GBD for acute cholecystitis using a lumen-apposing metal stent reported good results comparable to those of PTGBD in cases of acute cholecystitis [183, 217, 218]. At present, the EUS-GBD technique has not yet been generalized and hence, cannot be included in the recommendation.

• Surgical treatment is recommended for the Mirizzi syndrome.

(Recommendation: strong, 91% agreed, evidence level D).

• Endoscopic treatment with oral cholangioscopy at a well-equipped endoscopic institution is suggested for confluence stone.

(Recommendation: weak, 100% agreed, evidence level D).

The pathogenesis of Mirizzi syndrome is CBD stricture caused by compression of the common hepatic duct by stone and/or inflammation in the neck of the gallbladder. McSherry et al. classified it as type I without fistula and type II with gallbladder-bile duct fistulas. Csendes et al. classified McSherry type II into three subtypes: type II (fistula occupying 1/3 of the CBD), type III (fistula occupying 2/3 of the CBD), and type IV (fistula occupying the entire CBD width). MRCP is useful for diagnosis (44–82%) [219,220,221], and ERCP is performed not only for diagnosis but also for biliary drainage in cases of cholangitis and jaundice [222].

The standard treatment for Mirizzi syndrome is open surgery, including cholecystectomy and fistula closure. Temporary placement of a T-tube is carried out for small fistulas. The adverse event rate in patients with a fistula is reportedly high [219]. Laparoscopic surgery is difficult and has a higher rate of complications than open surgery [219, 223]. The conversion rate from laparoscopic surgery to open surgery is also high (8–76%) [219,220,221, 224, 225], with a complication rate of 12–19% [221, 224] including fatal cases [223, 224]. Laparoscopic treatment of Mirizzi syndrome should be performed only by skilled surgeons. [225, 226].

Endoscopic treatment is indicated for Mirizzi syndrome type II and confluence stones, which are located at the confluence of the cystic duct, common hepatic duct, and CBD. [227]. Peroral cholangioscopy with electrohydraulic lithotripsy (EHL) or YAG laser has shown a very high complete stone removal rate of 95% (92 of 97 cases) [228,229,230].

In Japan, endoscopic treatment is often performed using ESWL. Although endoscopic treatment of confluence stones is deemed to increase with the development and spread of devices, our recommendation has been weak (proposal) considering the local availability of this technique.

Flowchart for treatment of common bile duct stones

• – The standard treatment is endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) with subsequent endoscopic stone extraction; however, endoscopic papillary balloon dilation (EPBD) is also applicable.

• In cases of endoscopically difficult stones, endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation (EPLBD), peroral cholangioscopy (POCS), percutaneous transhepatic cholangioscopy (PTCS), balloon endoscopy-assisted techniques, and EUS-guided procedures are also used.

These statements were made with reference to the following information and papers [231,232,233].

• Surgical treatments for CBDS include "open surgery (cholecystectomy and choledocholithotomy),” "laparoscopic surgery (cholecystectomy and choledocholithotomy)," and "laparoscopic cholecystectomy and endoscopic removal of common bile duct stones."

This statement was made with reference to the following information and papers [10, 200, 234, 235].

• There are various treatment options, including (1) surgical cholecystectomy after endoscopic bile duct stone removal and (2) simultaneous surgical cholecystectomy and bile duct stone removal (Table 2).

This statement was made with reference to the following information and papers [236,237,238,239,240,241,242,243].

• Endoscopic CBDS removal plus surgical cholecystectomy and surgical CBDS removal plus cholecystectomy are equally effective in complete ductal clearance, the rate of residual stones, mortality, and complications, except for longer hospital stay for endoscopic CBDS removal plus surgical cholecystectomy.

• In Japan, a two-stage combination treatment of endoscopic CBDS removal followed by surgical cholecystectomy is commonly performed.

These statements were made with reference to the following information and papers [10, 200, 244,245,246,247,248].

• A method of assessing the relationship between the prognosis and function of the sphincter of Oddi after treatment of CBDS has not been established. The long-term impact of surgical treatment of CBDS on the stone recurrence rate and quality of life of patients should be investigated.

The treatment of CBDSs with gallbladder calculi is generally a two-stage procedure consisting of endoscopic treatment (endoscopic CBDS removal) and laparoscopic cholecystectomy, although surgical one-stage treatment is also used. In Japan, 80% of the CBDSs are treated with the two-stage treatment [200].

One-stage treatment allows preservation of the functions of the sphincter of Oddi. The stone recurrence rate is lower with one-stage treatment than with two-stage treatment and is reportedly 3.5% at 10 years [249]. The correlation between the functionality of the sphincter of Oddi and stone recurrence rate is related to the type of CBDSs and their origin (i.e., primary or secondary) [250]. In particular, one-stage treatment for patients aged < 60 years with secondary or cholesterol stones has a low recurrence rate [251].

On the other hand, the relationship between primary bile duct stones and sphincter of Oddi function with respect to etiology, course, and prognosis is not well understood.

Currently, available methods for evaluating papillary function include endoscopic or constant-flow perfusion biliary pressure measurement, biliary excretion dynamics by biliary scintigraphy, and serial MRCP imaging [252,253,254,255]. The impact of surgical CBDS removal with preservation of papillary sphincter function on long-term prognosis, such as the stone recurrence rate and patients’ quality of life, should be clarified.

• Supportive evidence for the recommendation of laparoscopic one-stage surgery for CBDS with gallbladder stones is insufficient, and further accumulation of data is necessary.

The one-stage surgical treatment of CBDSs with gallbladder stones consists of open surgery, which has been conventionally performed, and laparoscopic surgery. Laparoscopic surgery includes "laparoscopic cholecystectomy and choledocholithotomy," and laparoscopic cholecystectomy and intraoperative endoscopic removal of CBDS (rendezvous technique)". In recent years, reports of laparoscopic cholecystectomy and intraoperative endoscopic removal of CBDS have been increasing, mainly in Europe and the United States. In Japan, two-stage treatment is widely used, in which endoscopic removal of CBDS is performed first, followed by laparoscopic cholecystectomy. When one-stage surgical treatment is chosen, it is often difficult to perform endoscopic removal of CBDS for some reason.

According to a 2017 survey on endoscopic surgery by the Japan Society for Endoscopic Surgery, only 20 of the 353 centers (6%) performed laparoscopic choledocholithotomy in all cases, 196 centers (56%) performed laparoscopic choledocholithotomy in some cases, and 137 centers (39%) performed open choledocholithotomy in all cases, which is still a high percentage [200].

An RCT compared one-stage open versus one-stage laparoscopic choledocholithotomy in 256 patients with CBDS and found that there was no statistically significant difference in operative time, stone removal rate, or complication rate. However, laparoscopic choledocholithotomy was significantly better in terms of intraoperative bleeding, postoperative hospital stay, and wound infection rate [256]. As this single-center RCT is the only study to compare one-stage open versus one-stage laparoscopic choledocholithotomy, the evidence for the recommendation of the laparoscopic approach is currently insufficient.

One-stage laparoscopic cholecystectomy and choledocholithotomy should be performed safely, taking each institution's environment and surgeons' skills into account.

• Endoscopic treatment is recommended for CBDS that are uncomplicated by gallstones or with a history of cholecystectomy.

(Recommendation: strong, 100% agreed, evidence level C).

No RCTs or meta-analyses have compared endoscopy and surgery for CBDSs with uncomplicated gallbladder stones or previous cholecystectomy. Wang et al. [257] reported a retrospective study comparing endoscopic and laparoscopic treatments for CBDSs with previous cholecystectomy. The complete stone clearance rate after endoscopic treatment was significantly higher than that after laparoscopic surgery (97.7 vs. 87%; p = 0.003). The treatment time of endoscopy was significantly shorter than that of laparoscopy (52.0 ± 15.8 min vs. 102.9 ± 40.1 min, p < 0.001). The complication rate after treatment (endoscopy, 3.4%; laparoscopy, 11.1%, p = 0.15) and hospital stay (endoscopy, 5.5 ± 2.6 days; laparoscopy, 5.9 ± 2.3 min, p = 0.40) were not different.

Japan Biliary Association performed a multi-institutional prospective study on the treatment of CBDSs in 2013 [10]. Endoscopic treatment was most frequently performed for CBDSs without cholecystolithiasis (endoscopy, 71.2%; surgery, 7.6%).

Considering these results, endoscopy may be the first-choice treatment for CBDSs uncomplicated by gallbladder stones or after cholecystectomy.

• Stone removal is proposed for asymptomatic CBDS because of the risk of cholangitis and other complications.

(Recommendation: weak, 82% agreed, evidence level C).

Stone removal is generally performed for CBDSs regardless of the presence or absence of symptoms because of the risk of severe cholangitis and other complications [258]. However, the natural history of asymptomatic CBDSs remains unclear. Previous reports have shown that asymptomatic CBDSs are detected in 10–20% of the patients undergoing cholecystectomy [259,260,261]. Kim et al. reported the results of endoscopic treatment for CBDSs according to the presence or absence of symptoms [262] and reported that the incidence of pancreatitis after ERCP was significantly higher in patients with asymptomatic CBDSs (12.5 vs. 3.9%, p = 0.045). Hakuta et al. [263] reported an observational study of 191 asymptomatic cases of CBDSs: 114 cases in the wait-and-see group and 77 in the intervention group. The cumulative incidence of biliary complications was 6.1% at 1 year, 11% at 3 years, and 17% at 5 years, with no differences between the groups (p = 0.55). Procedure-related adverse events were observed in 22 patients (19%), including 4 (5.2%) with severe pancreatitis in the wait-and-see group and 25 (32%) in the early endoscopic removal group. They concluded that a wait-and-see strategy is an option, considering the incidence of procedure-related complications of endoscopic intervention for asymptomatic patients. At present, asymptomatic CBDSs are often treated endoscopically; however, the benefits and disadvantages of endoscopic treatment should be carefully evaluated, especially in the elderly, patients with poor activity of daily living (ADL), and those with serious underlying diseases.

• Single-session stone removal can be safely performed in patients with CBDSs and acute cholangitis. Bile duct drainage only in the first session and scheduled stone removal are suggested depending on the patient's condition.

(Recommendation: strong, 100% agreed, evidence level C).

For patients with common duct stones associated with acute cholangitis, there are two treatment options: (1) removal of stones in a single session and (2) performing biliary drainage only in the first session and waiting for the improvement of cholangitis before performing stone removal. In cases of severe acute cholangitis, short-term biliary drainage with stent placement (endoscopic biliary stenting (EBS) or endoscopic nasobiliary drainage (ENBD)) is recommended [264]. It is also safer to treat cholangitis with EBS alone without EST and to perform scheduled stone removal after the resolution of acute cholangitis, although the length of hospital stay is prolonged [265]. When complete stone removal is achieved, biliary drainage, such as EBS or ENBD, is not always necessary [266]. Eto et al. reported excellent results for single-session stone removal in 50 patients [267]. However, it should be noted that this study did not include patients with severe cholangitis or poor general condition. In addition, patients with a bleeding tendency or those undergoing antithrombotic treatment may be at risk of bleeding during/following endoscopic procedures, such as EST. The size and number of stones can make a single-session treatment difficult. Therefore, it is important to carefully evaluate the patient's general condition, the number and diameter of stones, and the severity grade of cholangitis according to Tokyo Guidelines (TG) 18 before treatment. If the equipment in the facility including the skill of endoscopists is not sufficient to perform the procedure safely, transfer of the patient to a specialized center should be considered [142]

• Early endoscopic treatment is suggested for biliary pancreatitis associated with acute cholangitis.

(Recommendation: strong, 100% agreed, evidence level C).

Multiple meta-analyses have compared early ERCP with conservative treatment for biliary pancreatitis [268,269,270,271,272]. Since ERCP is necessary for the management of acute cholangitis, the inclusion of patients with or without acute cholangitis has a great impact on the results of the meta-analyses. In the analyses that excluded patients with biliary pancreatitis associated with acute cholangitis [269, 270], early ERCP for biliary pancreatitis did not show any difference in morbidity and mortality rates compared to conservative management, regardless of the severity of pancreatitis. According to the analysis by Tse in 2012 [271], early ERCP significantly reduced mortality rates (RR, 0.20; 95% CI 0.06–0.68) and both local (RR, 0.45; 95% CI 0.20–0.99) and the general (RR, 0.37; 95% CI 0.18–0.78) adverse event rates if only RCTs including patients with biliary pancreatitis associated with acute cholangitis were analyzed. However, early ERCP showed a tendency to increase the mortality rate (RR, 1.91; 95% CI 0.85–4.30) and the local (RR, 1.15; 95% CI 0.69–1.92) and general (RR, 1.02; 95% CI 0.44–2.36) adverse event rates when only RCTs that excluded patients with acute cholangitis were analyzed. Based on these results, it is not recommended to perform early ERCP routinely in all patients with biliary pancreatitis. Early endoscopic treatment is suggested for cases of biliary pancreatitis associated with definite/suspected acute cholangitis. The diagnosis of acute cholangitis should be based on cholestatic findings on blood examinations and imaging findings since inflammatory findings can be caused by pancreatitis only. When endoscopic treatment of biliary pancreatitis associated with acute cholangitis is difficult, PTBD should be considered to manage acute cholangitis.

• EPLBD is recommended for large or multiple bile duct stones.

(Recommendation: strong, 91% agreed, evidence level A).

EPLBD, first reported by Ersoz et al. [273] in 2003, is a procedure to dilate the duodenal papilla using a large-diameter balloon of 12 mm or more in diameter with or without EST [274]. EPLBD is used to manage difficult bile duct stones, such as large or multiple stones because the biliary orifice is opened sufficiently after dilation using a large-diameter balloon. Several meta-analyses have evaluated the efficacy and safety of EPLBD in the management of bile duct stones [275,276,277,278,279,280]. A recent meta-analysis, including 9 RCTs and 9 non-RCTs, compared EPLBD with EST to EST alone for large (≥ 10 mm) or multiple bile duct stones [279]. The results showed that EPLBD with EST was significantly superior in both the total stone removal rate and the rate of stone removal in the first ERCP session, with less frequent use of mechanical lithotripsy. With regard to safety, EPLBD with EST showed a lower rate of overall early adverse events than EST alone. The incidence of significant bleeding was lower in the EPLBD with EST group than in the EST group; however, no difference was observed in the incidence of pancreatitis, acute cholangitis, or perforation between the groups. According to the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society guidelines for EPLBD, EPLBD is contraindicated in cases of distal bile duct stricture or nondilated bile duct because of the higher risk of perforation [232]. A meta-analysis evaluated the significance of EST before EPLBD and reported that EPLBD with EST showed similar efficacy and safety as EPLBD without EST [280]. Some studies comparing the long-term results between EPLBD and EST for large/multiple bile duct stones showed no significant differences in the incidence of long-term adverse events between the procedures, although further evaluation of safety is required because these reports are retrospective studies with insufficient follow-up periods [281, 282].

• For giant stones, endoscopic treatment with ESWL or POCS is performed at specialized centers; however, there is little evidence to support recommending its use.

(Recommendation: none, 91% agreed, evidence level D).

EPLBD is recommended for large stones (see CQ3-(2)-5), but giant stones > 3 cm are difficult to treat endoscopically, and ESWL has been used as an adjuvant treatment. It has been reported that a combination of ESWL with endoscopy achieves stone removal in 80–90% of the cases of giant bile duct stones [283]. Recently, with the advance of peroral cholangioscopy (POCS), endoscopic treatment of giant stones has been aggressively performed. In a meta-analysis of POCS for difficult-to-treat stones [284], the stone removal rate was 94.3%, of which 71.1% were successful in one session, and the complication rate was low (6.1%). Technically, lithotripsy under POCS is performed using laser or electrohydraulic lithotripsy (EHL); and the stone removal rate with the use of laser and that using EHL is reportedly 85–98% and 64–97%, respectively, while the removal rate using EHL is 64–97% [285].

In contrast, the stone removal rates of LCBDE and laparotomy in cases of unsuccessful endoscopic stone removal have been reported to be 95.2% and 95%, respectively [286].

The importance of POCS has been increasing with technological innovations and advances in equipment, and endoscopic treatment of giant stones, which was not previously indicated, is now being performed at specialized centers.

In addition to surgical and endoscopic treatment, stone removal by PTCS after PTBD is also useful [287].

• Balloon endoscopy is proposed for CBDS removal by experienced surgeons in patients with post-surgically altered upper gastrointestinal anatomy.

• (Recommendation: weak, 100% agreed, evidence level C).

The treatment methods for CBDS in patients with altered anatomy after upper gastrointestinal surgery, such as Roux-en-Y (R-Y) or Billroth II (B-II), include endoscopic, percutaneous, and surgical stone removal. Each treatment has individual advantages and disadvantages [288]. However, no report has compared these three methods. Successful endoscopic approach to the papilla and treatment success in B-II reconstruction cases using a conventional endoscope are 72–97% and 49–92%, respectively [289,290,291,292,293]; however, the results in R-Y cases are not satisfactory. The development of double-balloon and single-balloon endoscopes has made it easy to reach the duodenal papilla in cases of patients with a surgically altered anatomy [294,295,296], and these scopes are now widely used in endoscopic biliopancreatic interventions in daily clinical practice. Satisfactory results of ERCP in R-Y cases using a balloon endoscope have been reported as 92.6–97% for successful approaches to the papilla, 58–95.6% for successful cannulation of the bile duct, with an adverse event rate of 7.3–10.3% [294, 297,298,299]. However, this procedure remains challenging and entails a potential risk of severe adverse events. Therefore, balloon endoscopy-assisted ERCP should be performed by experienced endoscopists at specialized facilities [300, 301]. Recently, there have been several reports on the usefulness of interventional EUS for such patients, which is expected to be an alternative treatment method in cases of failed balloon endoscopy-assisted ERCP [302, 303].

• Percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage is useful in difficult cases for endoscopic transpapillary drainage, such as in patients with postoperative bowel reconstruction or unsuccessful transpapillary cannulation. EUS-BD has also emerged as a new treatment option.

This statement was made with reference to the following information and papers [304, 305].

• Patients with bleeding diathesis are good indications for EPBD.

These statements were made with reference to the following information and papers [306,307,308,309,310,311,312,313,314].

• Endoscopic treatment is recommended for CBDS in patients receiving antithrombotic therapy, as described in the relevant guidelines.

(Recommendation: weak, 82% agreed, evidence level C).

According to the Japanese guidelines [315, 316], patients with CBDS and acute cholangitis who also have coagulopathy, and those receiving antithrombotic therapy should initially undergo ENBD or EBS, that is, drainage alone, to improve cholangitis along with coagulopathy, and then undergo CBDS removal via EST, which should be performed after the withdrawal of the antithrombotic agent, for safety [317]. Some patients may undergo ENBD or EBS alone depending on their condition. EST and EPLBD should be performed in accordance with the corresponding guidelines [231, 232]. In patients at high risk of thromboembolism, who develop acute cholangitis, if such patients are receiving aspirin alone, EST or EPLBD without drug withdrawal can be acceptable after consultations with specialists in antithrombotic therapy. Patients receiving thienopyridine derivatives other than aspirin have been reported to have a higher risk of accidental bleeding; therefore, these drugs should be substituted with aspirin or cilostazol [231, 232]. When only warfarin is used as an anticoagulant, EST or EPLBD can be performed with warfarin therapy if the international normalized ratio is within the therapeutic range. EST or EPLBD can be performed in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation after temporarily switching from warfarin therapy to direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) therapy [316]. DOAC monotherapy should be continued until the day before EST or EPLBD is performed and resumed on the 1^st postoperative day.

EPBD is a good alternative to EST for the patient groups discussed here. The incidence of accidental procedure-related bleeding is significantly lower in patients undergoing EPBD than in those undergoing EST as reported in a meta-analysis [1].

• Endoscopic stone removal is recommended over permanent biliary stenting for CBDS in the elderly and in patients with serious underlying comorbidities. Permanent biliary stenting should be considered only in patients with a poor prognosis.

• (Recommendation: weak, 100% agreed, evidence level C).

The mainstay of endoscopic treatment for CBDS is complete stone removal after the duodenal papillary intervention. However, the elderly and patients with serious underlying diseases may not be able to endure long procedure time for endoscopic treatment of stones and are at risk of developing procedural complications.

Three retrospective studies and one RCT compared endoscopic stone removal and permanent stent placement for CBDS in the elderly and in patients with serious underlying diseases [318,319,320]. In all studies, no significant differences were observed in the incidence of short-term procedural complications between the two groups. However, the incidence of long-term biliary-related complications was significantly higher in the permanent biliary stenting group than in the endoscopic stone removal group, and the onset of long-term complications was earlier in patients undergoing permanent biliary stenting.

These findings suggest that endoscopic stone removal for CBDS is preferred over permanent biliary stenting, even in the elderly and patients with serious underlying diseases. Permanent biliary stenting should be considered only in patients with poor prognosis. After permanent stent placement, it is necessary to identify the signs of acute cholangitis, such as fever, jaundice, and abdominal pain, for the early detection and treatment of biliary stent-related complications.

• Balloon catheters are as useful as basket catheters in endoscopic stone removal for CBDS and both are recommended.

(Recommendation: strong, 100% agreed, evidence level B).

Endoscopic extraction of CBDS is generally performed using a balloon or basket catheter following EST. The choice between the two devices depends largely on the preferences of the operator and the institution. Basket catheters are generally used first in Japan and Europe [321, 322], while balloons are overwhelmingly used in the United States because of concerns about basket impaction [323].

Ishiwatari et al. [324] compared the complete stone removal rate of a balloon and a basket in an RCT on 172 patients with CBDS with a diameter < 10 mm (bile duct diameter < 15 mm) and found that the rate was significantly higher in the balloon group than in the basket group (92.3 vs. 80.0%, p = 0.037). Ozawa et al. [325] also compared the successful complete stone removal rate within 10 min in a randomized noninferiority study of 184 patients (CBDS diameter < 11 mm)The success rates were comparable (83.9% in the balloon group and 81.3% in the basket group), while the incidence of adverse events was also similar (11.8% and 6.6%). The reasons for failure in the balloon group were that the balloon passed through the duct beside the stone or the operator lost sight of the stone during the procedure; moreover, small stones tend to lodge at the pocket-like lower-end corner of the bile duct terminal. On the other hand, in the basket group, when the stones were very small, they slipped between the wires and were difficult to grasp.

As the results of the two RCTs have led to different conclusions, additional studies are needed. The recently published guidelines of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy have concluded that the efficacy and safety of the balloon and basket are equivalent [326].

• For CBDS with gallstones, cholecystectomy is recommended after endoscopic choledocholithotomy.

(Recommendation: strong, 91% agreed, evidence level B).

• For CBDS without gallstones, there is a lack of evidence to recommend additional cholecystectomy after endoscopic choledocholithotomy.

(Recommendation: none, 100% agreed, evidence level C).

In a meta-analysis of five RCTs that compared cholecystectomy and follow-up in patients with gallstones who underwent endoscopic choledocholithotomy, there were significantly more deaths in the follow-up group, a higher incidence of pain due to biliary tract, a higher incidence of recurrent jaundice and cholangitis, and a higher incidence of repeat cholangiography, such as ERCP [243, 327,328,329,330]. Furthermore, in the follow-up group, 35% of the patients underwent cholecystectomy during the follow-up period [331].

In a retrospective study of a large number of cases using the Korean National Health Insurance database, among the 16,910 patients with gallstones who were treated endoscopically for CBDS, the recurrence rate of CBDS was significantly lower among patients who underwent cholecystectomy, which was 8% (920 in 11,617 patients), compared to patients who did not undergo cholecystectomy, which was 15% (773 in 5293 patients) (p < 0.0001) [332]. These results indicate that there is a consensus that cholecystectomy is more effective than follow-up after endoscopic choledocholithotomy.

In contrast, a long-term retrospective study of patients with CBDS who were treated with endoscopic choledocholithotomy, including many cases without gallstones, showed no difference in the recurrence rate of CBDS between the follow-up and cholecystectomy groups at a median follow-up period of 5 years or longer (15 vs. 19%, p = 0.295) [333]. These results suggest that prophylactic cholecystectomy is not necessary after endoscopic choledocholithotomy in patients without gallstones, although further validation is necessary.

• The efficacy of ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) after CBDS removal in preventing recurrence has not been proven.

There are few reports on the outcomes of UDCA administration after the treatment of CBDS [334]. Yamamoto et al. reported in an RCT that the recurrence rate after the removal of CBDS was 6.6% in the UDCA group and 18.6% in the non-UDCA group, although the study included only a small number of patients [335]. In their multivariate analysis, only the UDCA group showed a significant difference, with a hazard ratio of 5.032 (95% CI 1.011–39.75, p = 0.048), indicating that the UDCA was effective against recurrent CBDS. Conversely, there have been reports of frequent recurrence of CBDS after the administration of UDCA [336, 337]. The acidic pH of bile is thought to be the cause of stone formation, as UDCA tends to precipitate more easily. In any case, there are no meta-analyses or large-scale randomized trials that provide clear evidence at present, and the choice of treatment should be determined on a case-by-case basis.

a Flowchart for treatment of hepatolithiasis with previous choledochoenterostomy. b Flowchart for treatment of hepatolithiasis without previous choledochoenterostomy

• Hepatectomy, choledochoenterostomy, choledochotomy, stone removal with or without T-tube drainage, and plasty of the duodenal papilla are surgical treatments for hepatolithiasis.

• ESWL, percutaneous transhepatic cholangioscopic lithotripsy, EUS-guided hepaticogastrostomy, endoscopic retrograde cholangiography (ERC), balloon-assisted ERC with stone extraction, and POCS with stone extraction have also been performed as nonsurgical treatments.

These statements were made with reference to the following information and papers [11, 161].

• Hepatectomy is indicated in patients with concomitant intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma and/or liver atrophy.

• Hepatectomy is considered in patients with failed nonsurgical treatments.

These statements were made with reference to the following information and papers [1, 11, 101, 111, 338, 339].

• For asymptomatic hepatolithiasis without concomitant cholangiocarcinoma*, liver atrophy*, biliary stricture**, or biliary dilatation**, follow-up without surgery is suggested.

(*:Recommendation: weak, 100% agreed, evidence level C).

(**:Recommendation: weak, 82% agreed, evidence level D).

Few studies have reported the long-term outcomes of asymptomatic hepatolithiasis. In asymptomatic hepatolithiasis, liver atrophy occurs less frequently than in symptomatic hepatolithiasis [340]. Furthermore, after hepatectomy for hepatolithiasis, cholangitis occurs more frequently in patients with remnant biliary strictures than in patients without biliary strictures [341]. Considering these results, follow-up is appropriate for asymptomatic hepatolithiasis without concomitant intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, liver atrophy, biliary strictures, or biliary dilatations. During follow-up, imaging studies and tests for tumor markers are required for the early detection of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma.

• The complete stone clearance rate of ESWL is not high. However, ESWL is useful when used in combination with endoscopic treatment.

This statement was made with reference to the following information and papers [1, 11, 342,343,344,345,346,347,348,349].

• The treatment outcomes of peroral endoscopic procedures, including ERC, balloon-assisted ERC, and peroral cholangioscopy on stone extraction, are similar to those of percutaneous transhepatic cholangioscopic lithotripsy.

This statement was made with reference to the following information and papers [11, 98, 113, 161, 285, 350,351,352].

• Residual or new stones in the bile duct or cystic duct, intraperitoneal migration of gallstones, insufficiency of the papillary sphincter, biliary tract injury, incisional hernia, and surgically induced changes in bile acid metabolism have been reported.

This statement was made with reference to the following information and papers [353,354,355].

• There is no clear evidence that cholecystectomy impairs digestive and absorptive function.

This statement was made with reference to the following information and papers [356,357,358,359,360,361,362].

• Although it is difficult to determine whether the stones are residual or recurrent, they might be risk factors for acute cholangitis and liver abscesses.

This statement was made with reference to the following information and papers [332, 363,364,365,366,367,368,369,370,371,372,373].

• Long-term complications included recurrent bile duct stones, acute cholangitis, and acute cholecystitis.

This statement was made with reference to the following information and papers [273, 314, 332, 363, 364, 366,367,368,369,370,371,372,373,374,375,376,377,378,379,380]

• Stone recurrence was the most common complication, followed by acute cholangitis, liver abscess, and intrahepatic bile duct cancer.

This statement was made with reference to the following information and papers [93, 94, 98, 107, 381,382,383,384,385,386,387,388].

1. Tazuma S, Unno M, Igarashi Y, et al. Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for cholelithiasis 2016. J Gastroenterol. 2017;52:276–300.

   Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

2. Minds Manual Developing Committee. Minds Manual for Guideline Development 2017. Tokyo: Japan Council for Quality Health Care; 2017. (in Japanese)

3. Qaseem A, Kansagara D, Lin JS, et al. The Development of Clinical Guidelines and Guidance Statements by the Clinical Guidelines Committee of the American College of Physicians: Update of Methods. Ann Intern Med. 2019;170:863–70.

   Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

4. Yoshida M, Kinoshita Y, Watanabe M, et al. JSGE Clinical Practice Guidelines 2014: standards, methods, and process of developing the guidelines. J Gastroenterol. 2015;50:4–10.

   Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

5. Health Statistics Association of Japan. Estimated number of patients based on patient surveys. Index of Health. 1993;39:29–35 (in Japanese).

6. Calle EE, Rodriguez C, Walker-Thurmond K, et al. Overweight, obesity, and mortality from cancer in a prospectively studied cohort of U.S. adults. N Engl J Med. 2003;348:1625–38.

   Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

7. Kameda H, Kozuki T, Tanimura H, et al. Report of cholelithiasis investigation committee of the Japan Biliary Association. J Jpn Biliary Assoc. 1990;4:396–404 (in Japanese with English abstract).

8. Tanimura H, Uchiyama K. Report on the results of the national survey on cholelithiasis 1996. J Jpn Biliary Assoc. 1997;11:133–140 (in Japanese with English abstract)

9. The Japanese Biliary Society Cholelithiasis Survey Project. National cholelithiasis survey report 1997. J Jpn Biliary Assoc. 1997;1998(12):276–93 (in Japanese).

   Google Scholar 

10. Committee JBA. Report on the 2013 National Survey for biliary stone. J Jpn Biliary Assoc. 2014;28:612–7 (in Japanese).

    Google Scholar 

11. Suzuki Y, Mori T, Yokoyama M, et al. Hepatolithiasis: analysis of Japanese nationwide surveys over a period of 40 years. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci. 2014;21:617–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

12. Hay DW, Carey MC. Pathophysiology and pathogenesis of cholesterol gallstone formation. Semin Liver Dis. 1990;10:159–70.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

13. Shoda J. Classification and pathogenesis of gallstones. J Jpn Biliary Assoc. 2013;27:672–679 (in Japanese with English abstract)

14. Ko CW, Sekijima JH, Lee SP. Biliary sludge. Ann Intern Med. 1999;130:301–11.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

15. Jonkers IJ, Smelt AH, Ledeboer M, et al. Gall bladder dysmotility: a risk factor for gall stone formation in hypertriglyceridaemia and reversal on triglyceride lowering therapy by bezafibrate and fish oil. Gut. 2003;52:109–15.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

16. Carey MC. Pathogenesis of gallstones. Am J Surg. 1993;165:410–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

17. Vitek L, Carey MC. New pathophysiological concepts underlying pathogenesis of pigment gallstones. Clin Res Hepatol Gastroenterol. 2012;36:122–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

18. Ise H, Moriyasu A, Suzuki N, et al. Pathogenesis of black stones. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg. 1997;4:412–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

19. Vitek L, Carey MC. Enterohepatic cycling of bilirubin as a cause of “black” pigment gallstones in adult life. Eur J Clin Invest. 2003;33:799–810.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

20. Shaffer EA. Epidemiology and risk factors for gallstone disease: has the paradigm changed in the 21st century? Curr Gastroenterol Rep. 2005;7:132–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

21. Stampfer MJ, Maclure KM, Colditz GA, et al. Risk of symptomatic gallstones in women with severe obesity. Am J Clin Nutr. 1992;55:652–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

22. Halpern Z, Rubin M, Harach G, et al. Bile and plasma lipid composition in non-obese normolipidemic subjects with and without cholesterol gallstones. Liver. 1993;13:246–52.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

23. Kim HS, Cho SK, Kim CS, et al. Big data and analysis of risk factors for gallbladder disease in the young generation of Korea. PLoS ONE. 2019;14: e0211480.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

24. Méndez-Sánchez N, Zamora-Valdés D, Chávez-Tapia NC, et al. Role of diet in cholesterol gallstone formation. Clin Chim Acta. 2007;376:1–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

25. Cuevas A, Miquel JF, Reyes MS, et al. Diet as a risk factor for cholesterol gallstone disease. J Am Coll Nutr. 2004;23:187–96.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

26. Barbara L, Sama C, Labate AMM, et al. A population study on the prevalence of gallstone disease: the Sirmione Study. Hepatology. 1987;7:913–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

27. Grodstein F, Colditz GA, Hunter DJ, et al. A prospective study of symptomatic gallstones in women: relation with oral contraceptives and other risk factors. Obstet Gynecol. 1994;84:207–14.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

28. Everhart JE. Contributions of obesity and weight loss to gallstone disease. Ann Intern Med. 1993;119:1029–35.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

29. Ohya T, Tazuma S. Pathogenesis of Gallstone and Pancreatic Stone Formation. Endoscopia Digestiva. 2019;31:1594–1600 (in Japanese with English abstract).

30. Tsai C-J, Leitzmann MF, Willett WC, et al. Macronutrients and insulin resistance in cholesterol gallstone disease. Off J Am Coll Gastroenterol ACG. 2008;103:2932–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

31. Thomas LA, Veysey MJ, Bathgate T, et al. Mechanism for the transit-induced increase in colonic deoxycholic acid formation in cholesterol cholelithiasis. Gastroenterology. 2000;119:806–15.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

32. Colecchia A, Mazzella G, Sandri L, et al. Ursodeoxycholic acid improves gastrointestinal motility defects in gallstone patients. World J Gastroenterol. 2006;12:5336.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

33. Gustafsson U, Benthin L, Granström L, et al. Changes in gallbladder bile composition and crystal detection time in morbidly obese subjects after bariatric surgery. Hepatology. 2005;41:1322–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

34. Asai Y, Yamada T, Tsukita S, et al. Activation of the hypoxia inducible factor 1α subunit pathway in steatotic liver contributes to formation of cholesterol gallstones. Gastroenterology. 2017;152(1521–1535): e8.

    Google Scholar 

35. Pomeranz IS, Shaffer EA. Abnormal gallbladder emptying in a subgroup of patients with gallstones. Gastroenterology. 1985;88:787–91.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

36. Pauletzki J, Althaus R, Holl J, et al. Gallbladder emptying and gallstone formation: a prospective study on gallstone recurrence. Gastroenterology. 1996;111:765–71.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

37. Portincasa P, Di Ciaula A, Wang HH, et al. Coordinate regulation of gallbladder motor function in the gut-liver axis. Hepatology. 2008;47:2112–26.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

38. Inoue K, Fuchigami A, Higashide S, et al. Gallbladder sludge and stone formation in relation to contractile function after gastrectomy. A prospective study. Ann Surg. 1992;215:19.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

39. Shoda J, He B-F, Tanaka N, et al. Increase of deoxycholate in supersaturated bile of patients with cholesterol gallstone disease and its correlation with de novo syntheses of cholesterol and bile acids in liver, gallbladder emptying, and small intestinal transit. Hepatology. 1995;21:1291–302.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

40. Tsai C-J, Leitzmann MF, Hu FB, et al. A prospective cohort study of nut consumption and the risk of gallstone disease in men. Am J Epidemiol. 2004;160:961–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

41. Leitzmann MF, Stampfer MJ, Willett WC, et al. Coffee intake is associated with lower risk of symptomatic gallstone disease in women. Gastroenterology. 2002;123:1823–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

42. Festi D, Colecchia A, Orsini M, et al. Gallbladder motility and gallstone formation in obese patients following very low calorie diets. Use it (fat) to lose it (well). Int J Obes. 1998;22:592–600.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

43. Cha BH, Jang M-j, Lee SH. Alcohol consumption can reduce the risk of gallstone disease: a systematic review with a dose-response meta-analysis of case-control and cohort studies. Gut Liver. 2019;13:114.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

44. Leitzmann MF, Rimm EB, Willett WC, et al. Recreational physical activity and the risk of cholecystectomy in women. N Engl J Med. 1999;341:777–84.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

45. Shoda J, Miyamoto J, Kano M, et al. Simultaneous determination of plasma mevalonate and 7 α-hydroxy-4-cholesten-3-one levels in hyperlipoproteinemia: Convenient indices for estimating hepatic defects of cholesterol and bile acid syntheses and biliary cholesterol supersaturation. Hepatology. 1997;25:18–26.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

46. Tsai CJ, Leitzmann MF, Willett WC, et al. Statin use and the risk of cholecystectomy in women. Gastroenterology. 2009;136:1593–600.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

47. Festi D, Frabboni R, Bazzoli F, et al. Gallbladder motility in cholesterol gallstone disease: effect of ursodeoxycholic acid administration and gallstone dissolution. Gastroenterology. 1990;99:1779–85.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

48. Veysey M, Malcolm P, Mallet A, et al. Effects of cisapride on gall bladder emptying, intestinal transit, and serum deoxycholate: a prospective, randomised, double blind, placebo controlled trial. Gut. 2001;49:828–34.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

49. Shoda J. Natural History of Gallstones. J Jpn Biliary Assoc. 2017;31:187–195 (in Japanese with English abstract)

50. Festi D, Reggiani MLB, Attili AF, et al. Natural history of gallstone disease: expectant management or active treatment? Results from a population-based cohort study. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2010;25:719–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

51. Shabanzadeh DM, Sorensen LT, Jorgensen T. A Prediction Rule for Risk Stratification of Incidentally Discovered Gallstones: Results From a Large Cohort Study. Gastroenterology. 2016;150(156–167): e1.

    Google Scholar 

52. Persson GE. Expectant management of patients with gallbladder stones diagnosed at planned investigation. A prospective 5- to 7-year follow-up study of 153 patients. Scand J Gastroenterol. 1996;31:191–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

53. Dworken HJ. Recent experiences with spontaneously disappearing gallstones. Gastroenterology. 1960;38:76–86.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

54. Norman CH Jr, Butera DG. Spontaneously disappearing gallstones. J Natl Med Assoc. 1979;71:61.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

55. Friedman GD. Natural history of asymptomatic and symptomatic gallstones. Am J Surg. 1993;165:399–404.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

56. Thistle JL, Cleary PA, Lachin JM, et al. The natural history of cholelithiasis: the National Cooperative Gallstone Study. Ann Intern Med. 1984;101:171–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

57. Lamberts MP, Ozdemir C, Drenth JPH, et al. Cost-effectiveness of a new strategy to identify uncomplicated gallstone disease patients that will benefit from a cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc. 2017;31:2534–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

58. Brazzelli M, Cruickshank M, Kilonzo M, et al. Systematic review of the clinical and cost effectiveness of cholecystectomy versus observation/conservative management for uncomplicated symptomatic gallstones or cholecystitis. Surg Endosc. 2015;29:637–47.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

59. Schmidt M, Sondenaa K, Vetrhus M, et al. A randomized controlled study of uncomplicated gallstone disease with a 14-year follow-up showed that operation was the preferred treatment. Dig Surg. 2011;28:270–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

60. Cariati A, Piromalli E, Cetta F. Gallbladder cancers: associated conditions, histological types, prognosis, and prevention. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2014;26:562–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

61. Diehl AK. Gallstone size and the risk of gallbladder cancer. JAMA. 1983;250:2323–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

62. Lowenfels AB, Lindstrom CG, Conway MJ, et al. Gallstones and risk of gallbladder cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1985;75:77–80.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

63. Nervi F, Duarte I, Gomez G, et al. Frequency of gallbladder cancer in Chile, a high-risk area. Int J Cancer. 1988;41:657–60.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

64. WHO. Combined oral contraceptives and gallbladder cancer. The WHO Collaborative Study of Neoplasia and Steroid Contraceptives. Int J Epidemiol. 1989;18:309–14.

65. Kato K, Akai S, Tominaga S, et al. A case-control study of biliary tract cancer in Niigata Prefecture. Japan Jpn J Cancer Res. 1989;80:932–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

66. Kimura W, Shimada H, Kuroda A, et al. Carcinoma of the gallbladder and extrahepatic bile duct in autopsy cases of the aged, with special reference to its relationship to gallstones. Am J Gastroenterol. 1989;84:386–90.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

67. Zatonski WA, Lowenfels AB, Boyle P, et al. Epidemiologic aspects of gallbladder cancer: a case-control study of the SEARCH Program of the International Agency for Research on Cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1997;89:1132–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

68. Okamoto M, Okamoto H, Kitahara F, et al. Ultrasonographic evidence of association of polyps and stones with gallbladder cancer. Am J Gastroenterol. 1999;94:446–50.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

69. Khan ZR, Neugut AI, Ahsan H, et al. Risk factors for biliary tract cancers. Am J Gastroenterol. 1999;94:149–52.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

70. Scott TE, Carroll M, Cogliano FD, et al. A case-control assessment of risk factors for gallbladder carcinoma. Dig Dis Sci. 1999;44:1619–25.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

71. Csendes A, Becerra M, Rojas J, et al. Number and size of stones in patients with asymptomatic and symptomatic gallstones and gallbladder carcinoma: a prospective study of 592 cases. J Gastrointest Surg. 2000;4:481–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

72. Serra I, Yamamoto M, Calvo A, et al. Association of chili pepper consumption, low socioeconomic status and longstanding gallstones with gallbladder cancer in a Chilean population. Int J Cancer. 2002;102:407–11.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

73. Roa I, Ibacache G, Roa J, et al. Gallstones and gallbladder cancer-volume and weight of gallstones are associated with gallbladder cancer: a case-control study. J Surg Oncol. 2006;93:624–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

74. Ahrens W, Timmer A, Vyberg M, et al. Risk factors for extrahepatic biliary tract carcinoma in men: medical conditions and lifestyle: results from a European multicentre case-control study. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2007;19:623–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

75. Grainge MJ, West J, Solaymani-Dodaran M, et al. The antecedents of biliary cancer: a primary care case-control study in the United Kingdom. Br J Cancer. 2009;100:178–80.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

76. Alvi AR, Siddiqui NA, Zafar H. Risk factors of gallbladder cancer in Karachi-a case-control study. World J Surg Oncol. 2011;9:164.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

77. Maringhini A, Moreau JA, Melton LJ 3rd, et al. Gallstones, gallbladder cancer, and other gastrointestinal malignancies. An epidemiologic study in Rochester, Minnesota. Ann Intern Med. 1987;107:30–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

78. Chow WH, Johansen C, Gridley G, et al. Gallstones, cholecystectomy and risk of cancers of the liver, biliary tract and pancreas. Br J Cancer. 1999;79:640–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

79. Ishiguro S, Inoue M, Kurahashi N, et al. Risk factors of biliary tract cancer in a large-scale population-based cohort study in Japan (JPHC study); with special focus on cholelithiasis, body mass index, and their effect modification. Cancer Causes Control. 2008;19:33–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

80. Randi G, Franceschi S, La Vecchia C. Gallbladder cancer worldwide: geographical distribution and risk factors. Int J Cancer. 2006;118:1591–602.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

81. Yagyu K, Lin Y, Obata Y, et al. Bowel movement frequency, medical history and the risk of gallbladder cancer death: a cohort study in Japan. Cancer Sci. 2004;95:674–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

82. Schnelldorfer T. Porcelain gallbladder: a benign process or concern for malignancy? J Gastrointest Surg. 2013;17:1161–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

83. Nomura Y, Inui K, Yoshino J, et al. Causes of cholelithiasis, epidemiology, gallbladder stones and gallbladder cancer. Naika. 2005;95:223–6 (in Japanese).

    Google Scholar 

84. Otani K, Chijiiwa K, Ouchida J, et al. Indications for resection of cholelithiasis and gallbladder polyps. Surgery. 2009;71:29–33.

    Google Scholar 

85. Horiguchi Y, Sakamoto K, Harada M, et al. Treatment of cholelithiasis: The natural history and treatment strategy for asymptomatic gallbladder stones. Naika. 2005;95:251–4 (in Japanese).

    Google Scholar 

86. Koga A, Ichimiya H, Yamaguchi K, et al. Hepatolithiasis associated with cholangiocarcinoma. Possible etiologic significance Cancer. 1985;55:2826–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

87. Chen MF, Jan YY, Wang CS, et al. A reappraisal of cholangiocarcinoma in patient with hepatolithiasis. Cancer. 1993;71:2461–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

88. Sheen-Chen SM, Chou FF, Eng HL. Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma in hepatolithiasis: a frequently overlooked disease. J Surg Oncol. 1991;47:131–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

89. Kawarada Y, Mita T. Cholangiocarcinoma associated with hepatolithiasis. Tan to Sui. 1994;15:435–46 (in Japanese).

    Google Scholar 

90. Chijiiwa K, Yamashita H, Yoshida J, et al. Current management and long-term prognosis of hepatolithiasis. Arch Surg. 1995;130:194–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

91. Kubo S, Kinoshita H, Hirohashi K, et al. Hepatolithiasis associated with cholangiocarcinoma. World J Surg. 1995;19:637–41.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

92. Liu CL, Fan ST, Wong J. Primary biliary stones: diagnosis and management. World J Surg. 1998;22:1162–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

93. Chen DW, Tung-Ping Poon R, Liu CL, et al. Immediate and long-term outcomes of hepatectomy for hepatolithiasis. Surgery. 2004;135:386–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

94. Cheung MT, Kwok PC. Liver resection for intrahepatic stones. Arch Surg. 2005;140:993–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

95. Vetrone G, Ercolani G, Grazi GL, et al. Surgical therapy for hepatolithiasis: a Western experience. J Am Coll Surg. 2006;202:306–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

96. Lee TY, Chen YL, Chang HC, et al. Outcomes of hepatectomy for hepatolithiasis. World J Surg. 2007;31:479–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

97. Al-Sukhni W, Gallinger S, Pratzer A, et al. Recurrent pyogenic cholangitis with hepatolithiasis–the role of surgical therapy in North America. J Gastrointest Surg. 2008;12:496–503.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

98. Cheon YK, Cho YD, Moon JH, et al. Evaluation of long-term results and recurrent factors after operative and nonoperative treatment for hepatolithiasis. Surgery. 2009;146:843–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

99. Uenishi T, Hamba H, Takemura S, et al. Outcomes of hepatic resection for hepatolithiasis. Am J Surg. 2009;198:199–202.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

100. Tabrizian P, Jibara G, Shrager B, et al. Hepatic resection for primary hepatolithiasis: a single-center Western experience. J Am Coll Surg. 2012;215:622–6.

     Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

101. Suzuki Y, Mori T, Abe N, et al. Predictive factors for cholangiocarcinoma associated with hepatolithiasis determined on the basis of Japanese Multicenter study. Hepatol Res. 2012;42:166–70.

     Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

102. Guglielmi A, Ruzzenente A, Valdegamberi A, et al. Hepatolithiasis-associated cholangiocarcinoma: results from a multi-institutional national database on a case series of 23 patients. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2014;40:567–75.

     Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

103. Zhu QD, Zhou MT, Zhou QQ, et al. Diagnosis and surgical treatment of intrahepatic hepatolithiasis combined with cholangiocarcinoma. World J Surg. 2014;38:2097–104.

     Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

104. Furukawa M, Sasaki M, Ohtsubo M, et al. Natural history of primary hepatolithiasis. Tan to Sui. 1998;19:1021–7 (in Japanese).

     Google Scholar 

105. Jo JH, Chung MJ, Park JY, et al. High serum CA19-9 levels are associated with an increased risk of cholangiocarcinoma in patients with intrahepatic duct stones: a case-control study. Surg Endosc. 2013;27:4210–6.

     Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

106. Liu ZY, Zhou YM, Shi LH, et al. Risk factors of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma in patients with hepatolithiasis: a case-control study. Hepatobiliary Pancreat Dis Int. 2011;10:626–31.

     Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

107. Suzuki Y, Mori T, Yokoyama M, et al. Predictive factors for cholangiocarcinoma associated with hepatolithiasis determined on the basis of Japanese Multicenter study Journal of Japan Biliary Association. 2013;27:700–704 (in Japanese with English abstract)

108. Chijiiwa K, Ichimiya H, Kuroki S, et al. Late development of cholangiocarcinoma after the treatment of hepatolithiasis. Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1993;177:279–82.

     CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

109. Jan YY, Chen MF, Wang CS, et al. Surgical treatment of hepatolithiasis: long-term results. Surgery. 1996;120:509–14.

     Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

110. Huang MH, Chen CH, Yang JC, et al. Long-term outcome of percutaneous transhepatic cholangioscopic lithotomy for hepatolithiasis. Am J Gastroenterol. 2003;98:2655–62.

     Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

111. Li SQ, Liang LJ, Peng BG, et al. Outcomes of liver resection for intrahepatic stones: a comparative study of unilateral versus bilateral disease. Ann Surg. 2012;255:946–53.

     Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

112. Lin CC, Lin PY, Chen YL. Comparison of concomitant and subsequent cholangiocarcinomas associated with hepatolithiasis: clinical implications. World J Gastroenterol. 2013;19:375–80.

     Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

113. Tsuyuguchi T, Miyakawa K, Sugiyama H, et al. Ten-year long-term results after non-surgical management of hepatolithiasis, including cases with choledochoenterostomy. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci. 2014;21:795–800.

     Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

114. Kim HJ, Kim JS, Suh SJ, et al. Cholangiocarcinoma Risk as Long-term Outcome After Hepatic Resection in the Hepatolithiasis Patients. World J Surg. 2015;39:1537–42.

     Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

115. Meng ZW, Han SH, Zhu JH, et al. Risk Factors for Cholangiocarcinoma After Initial Hepatectomy for Intrahepatic Stones. World J Surg. 2017;41:835–43.

     Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

116. Kim HJ, Kang TU, Swan H, et al. Incidence and Prognosis of Subsequent Cholangiocarcinoma in Patients with Hepatic Resection for Bile Duct Stones. Dig Dis Sci. 2018;63:3465–73.

     Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

117. Gibney EJ. Asymptomatic gallstones. Br J Surg. 1990;77:368–72.

     Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

118. Portincasa P, Moschetta A, Petruzzelli M, et al. Gallstone disease: symptoms and diagnosis of gallbladder stones. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol. 2006;20:1017–29.

     Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

119. Tomida S, Abei M, Yamaguchi T, et al. Long-term ursodeoxycholic acid therapy is associated with reduced risk of biliary pain and acute cholecystitis in patients with gallbladder stones: a cohort analysis. Hepatology. 1999;30:6–13.

     Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

120. Tazuma S, Kanno K, Kubota K, et al. Report on the 2013 national cholelithiasis survey in Japan. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci. 2015;22:392–5.

     Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

121. Peng WK, Sheikh Z, Paterson-Brown S, et al. Role of liver function tests in predicting common bile duct stones in acute calculous cholecystitis. Br J Surg. 2005;92:1241–7.

     Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

122. Barakos JA, Ralls PW, Lapin SA, et al. Cholelithiasis: evaluation with CT. Radiology. 1987;162:415–8.

     Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

123. Neitlich T, Neitlich J. The imaging evaluation of cholelithiasis in the obese patient-ultrasound vs CT cholecystography: our experience with the bariatric surgery population. Obes Surg. 2009;19:207–10.

     Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

124. Ito K, Fujita N, Noda Y, et al. [The significance of magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography in acute cholecystitis]. Nihon Shokakibyo Gakkai Zasshi. 2000;97:1472–9 (in Japanese with English abstract)

125. Dahan P, Andant C, Levy P, et al. Prospective evaluation of endoscopic ultrasonography and microscopic examination of duodenal bile in the diagnosis of cholecystolithiasis in 45 patients with normal conventional ultrasonography. Gut. 1996;38:277–81.

     Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

126. Yokoe M, Takada T, Strasberg SM, et al. New diagnostic criteria and severity assessment of acute cholecystitis in revised Tokyo Guidelines. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci. 2012;19:578–85.

     Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

127. Naidu K, Beenen E, Gananadha S, et al. The yield of fever, inflammatory markers and ultrasound in the diagnosis of acute cholecystitis: a validation of the 2013 Tokyo guidelines. World J Surg. 2016;40:2892–7.

     Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

128. Yokoe M, Takada T, Hwang TL, et al. Descriptive review of acute cholecystitis: Japan-Taiwan collaborative epidemiological study. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci. 2017;24:319–28.

     Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

129. Gruber PJ, Silverman RA, Gottesfeld S, et al. Presence of fever and leukocytosis in acute cholecystitis. Ann Emerg Med. 1996;28:273–7.

     Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

130. Strasberg SM. Clinical practice. Acute calculous cholecystitis. N Engl J Med. 2008;358:2804–11.

     Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

131. Yokoe M, Takada T, Strasberg SM, et al. TG13 diagnostic criteria and severity grading of acute cholecystitis (with videos). J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci. 2013;20:35–46.

     Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

132. Hammarstrom L, Ranstam J. Factors predictive of bile duct stones in patients with acute calculous cholecystitis. Dig Surg. 1998;15:323–7.

     Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

133. Yarmish GM, Smith MP, Rosen MP, et al. ACR appropriateness criteria right upper quadrant pain. J Am Coll Radiol. 2014;11:316–22.

     Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

134. Pinto A, Reginelli A, Cagini L, et al. Accuracy of ultrasonography in the diagnosis of acute calculous cholecystitis: review of the literature. Crit Ultrasound J. 2013;5(Suppl 1):S11.

     Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

135. Ralls PW, Colletti PM, Lapin SA, et al. Real-time sonography in suspected acute cholecystitis. Prospective evaluation of primary and secondary signs. Radiology. 1985;155:767–71.

     Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

136. Martinez A, Bona X, Velasco M, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound in acute cholecystitis. Gastrointest Radiol. 1986;11:334–8.

     Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

137. Cohan RH, Mahony BS, Bowie JD, et al. Striated intramural gallbladder lucencies on US studies: predictors of acute cholecystitis. Radiology. 1987;164:31–5.

     Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

138. Ralls PW, Halls J, Lapin SA, et al. Prospective evaluation of the sonographic Murphy sign in suspected acute cholecystitis. J Clin Ultrasound. 1982;10:113–5.

     Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

139. Bree RL. Further observations on the usefulness of the sonographic Murphy sign in the evaluation of suspected acute cholecystitis. J Clin Ultrasound. 1995;23:169–72.

     Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

140. Harvey RT, Miller WT Jr. Acute biliary disease: initial CT and follow-up US versus initial US and follow-up CT. Radiology. 1999;213:831–6.

     Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

141. Mirvis SE, Vainright JR, Nelson AW, et al. The diagnosis of acute acalculous cholecystitis: a comparison of sonography, scintigraphy, and CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1986;147:1171–5.

     Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

142. Kiriyama S, Kozaka K, Takada T, et al. Tokyo Guidelines 2018: diagnostic criteria and severity grading of acute cholangitis (with videos). J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci. 2018;25:17–30.

     Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

143. Kiriyama S, Takada T, Strasberg SM, et al. New diagnostic criteria and severity assessment of acute cholangitis in revised Tokyo Guidelines. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci. 2012;19:548–56.

     Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

144. Abboud PA, Malet PF, Berlin JA, et al. Predictors of common bile duct stones prior to cholecystectomy: a meta-analysis. Gastrointest Endosc. 1996;44:450–5.

     Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

145. Inui K, Fujita N. Diagnosis of choledocholithiasis. J Jpn Biliary Assoc. 2010;24:239–244 (in Japanese with English abstract)

146. Tseng CW, Chen CC, Chen TS, et al. Can computed tomography with coronal reconstruction improve the diagnosis of choledocholithiasis? J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2008;23:1586–9.

     Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

147. Mark DH, Flamm CR, Aronson N. Evidence-based assessment of diagnostic modalities for common bile duct stones. Gastrointest Endosc. 2002;56:S190–4.

     Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

148. Chen W, Mo JJ, Lin L, et al. Diagnostic value of magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography in choledocholithiasis. World J Gastroenterol. 2015;21:3351–60.

     Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

149. Jendresen MB, Thorboll JE, Adamsen S, et al. Preoperative routine magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography before laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a prospective study. Eur J Surg. 2002;168:690–4.

     Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

150. Tse F, Liu L, Barkun AN, et al. EUS: a meta-analysis of test performance in suspected choledocholithiasis. Gastrointest Endosc. 2008;67:235–44.

     Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

151. Gurusamy KS, Giljaca V, Takwoingi Y, et al. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography versus intraoperative cholangiography for diagnosis of common bile duct stones. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;(2):CD011548.

152. Endo T, Ito K, Fujita N, et al. Intraductal ultrasonography in the diagnosis of bile duct stones: when and whom? Dig Endosc. 2011;23:173–5.

     Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

153. Kim DC, Moon JH, Choi HJ, et al. Usefulness of intraductal ultrasonography in icteric patients with highly suspected choledocholithiasis showing normal endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Dig Dis Sci. 2014;59:1902–8.

     Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

154. Meeralam Y, Al-Shammari K, Yaghoobi M. Diagnostic accuracy of EUS compared with MRCP in detecting choledocholithiasis: a meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy in head-to-head studies. Gastrointest Endosc. 2017;86:986–93.

     Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

155. Liu CL, Lo CM, Chan JK, et al. Detection of choledocholithiasis by EUS in acute pancreatitis: a prospective evaluation in 100 consecutive patients. Gastrointest Endosc. 2001;54:325–30.

     Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

156. Liu CL, Fan ST, Lo CM, et al. Comparison of early endoscopic ultrasonography and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in the management of acute biliary pancreatitis: a prospective randomized study. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2005;3:1238–44.

     Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

157. Petrov MS, Savides TJ. Systematic review of endoscopic ultrasonography versus endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography for suspected choledocholithiasis. Br J Surg. 2009;96:967–74.

     Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

158. Tokumura H. Development of primary bile duct stones-function of the major papilla and biliary infection. Naika. 2005;95:217–22 (in Japanese).

     Google Scholar 

159. Hasegawa H, Sakamoto E, Komatsu S, et al. Laparoscopic management of common bile duct stones. Journal of Japan Biliary Association. 2010;24:554–560 (in Japanese with English abstract).

160. Ministry of Health, Labour, and Welfare. A guide to the treatment of intrahepatic stone disease. Research Group for Intractable Hepatobiliary Diseases, editor. Tokyo: Bunkodo; 2011 (in Japanese).

161. Mori T, Suzuki Y, Tazuma S, et al. Hepatolithiasis; 8th nationwide cross-sectional survey. Report of the research group on intractable hepato-biliary diseases. 2019:75–80 (in Japanese).

162. Tsuchiya S, Tsuyuguchi T, Sakai Y, et al. Lon-term follow-up of silent stones in the peripheral bile duct. Tan to Sui. 2007;28:505–8 (in Japanese).

     Google Scholar 

163. Kudo M, Izumi N, Kubo S, et al. Report of the 20th Nationwide follow-up survey of primary liver cancer in Japan. Hepatol Res. 2020;50:15–46.

     Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

164. Sasanuma H, Sata N, Endo K, et al. Profile of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma associated hepatolithiasis. J Jpn Biliary Assoc. 2014;28:741–746 (in Japanese with English abstract).

165. Mayumi T, Okamoto K, Takada T, et al. Tokyo Guidelines 2018: management bundles for acute cholangitis and cholecystitis. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci. 2018;25:96–100.

     Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

166. Catena F, Ansaloni L, Bianchi E, et al. The ACTIVE (Acute Cholecystitis Trial Invasive Versus Endoscopic) Study: multicenter randomized, double-blind, controlled trial of laparoscopic versus open surgery for acute cholecystitis. Hepatogastroenterology. 2013;60:1552–6.

     PubMed  Google Scholar 

167. Boo YJ, Kim WB, Kim J, et al. Systemic immune response after open versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy in acute cholecystitis: a prospective randomized study. Scand J Clin Lab Invest. 2007;67:207–14.

     Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

168. Johansson M, Thune A, Nelvin L, et al. Randomized clinical trial of open versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy in the treatment of acute cholecystitis. Br J Surg. 2005;92:44–9.

     Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

169. Gomi H, Solomkin JS, Schlossberg D, et al. Tokyo Guidelines 2018: antimicrobial therapy for acute cholangitis and cholecystitis. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci. 2018;25:3–16.

     Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

170. Kim EY, Yoon YC, Choi HJ, et al. Is there a real role of postoperative antibiotic administration for mildmoderate acute cholecystitis? A prospective randomized controlled trial. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci. 2017;24:550–8.

     Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

171. Charlson M, Szatrowski TP, Peterson J, et al. Validation of a combined comorbidity index. J Clin Epidemiol. 1994;47:1245–51.

     Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

172. Sakamoto T, Fujiogi M, Matsui H, et al. Timing of cholecystectomy after percutaneous transhepatic gallbladder drainage for acute cholecystitis: a nationwide inpatient database study. HPB (Oxf). 2020;22:920–6.

     Article  Google Scholar 

173. Siddiqui A, Kunda R, Tyberg A, et al. Three-way comparative study of endoscopic ultrasound-guided transmural gallbladder drainage using lumen-apposing metal stents versus endoscopic transpapillary drainage versus percutaneous cholecystostomy for gallbladder drainage in high-risk surgical patients with acute cholecystitis: clinical outcomes and success in an International, Multicenter Study. Surg Endosc. 2019;33:1260–70.

     Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

174. Rothrock SG, Green SM, Gorton E. Atropine for the treatment of biliary tract pain: a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Ann Emerg Med. 1993;22:1324–7.

     Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

175. Miyoshi S. Effect of trihydroxy propiophenone on subjective symptoms (especially in bile duct diseases). Naika Hokan. 1967;14:187–91 (in Japanese).

     CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

176. Goldman G, Kahn PJ, Alon R, et al. Biliary colic treatment and acute cholecystitis prevention by prostaglandin inhibitor. Dig Dis Sci. 1989;34:809–11.

     Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

177. Magrini M, Rivolta G, Movilia PG, et al. Successful treatment of biliary colic with intravenous ketoprofen or lysine acetylsalicylate. Curr Med Res Opin. 1985;9:454–60.

     Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

178. Al-Waili N, Saloom KY. The analgesic effect of intravenous tenoxicam in symptomatic treatment of biliary colic: a comparison with hyoscine N-butylbromide. Eur J Med Res. 1998;3:475–9.

     CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

179. Akriviadis EA, Hatzigavriel M, Kapnias D, et al. Treatment of biliary colic with diclofenac: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Gastroenterology. 1997;113:225–31.

     Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

180. Venneman NG, Besselink MG, Keulemans YC, et al. Ursodeoxycholic acid exerts no beneficial effect in patients with symptomatic gallstones awaiting cholecystectomy. Hepatology. 2006;43:1276–83.

     Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

181. May GR, Sutherland LR, Shaffer EA. Efficacy of bile acid therapy for gallstone dissolution: a meta-analysis of randomized trials. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 1993;7:139–48.

     Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

182. Yamaguchi A, Tazuma S, Chayama K. The modality of non-surgical treatments for gallstones: factors affecting gallstone recurrence after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) and post-therapeutic symptoms. J Jpn Biliary Assoc. 2004;18:108–113 (in Japanese with English abstract).

183. Jain D, Bhandari BS, Agrawal N, et al. Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Gallbladder Drainage Using a Lumen-Apposing Metal Stent for Acute Cholecystitis: A Systematic Review. Clin Endosc. 2018;51:450–62.

     Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

184. Ransohoff DF, Gracie WA. Treatment of gallstones. Ann Intern Med. 1993;119:606–19.

     Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

185. Halldestam I, Enell EL, Kullman E, et al. Development of symptoms and complications in individuals with asymptomatic gallstones. Br J Surg. 2004;91:734–8.

     Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

186. Gurusamy KS, Davidson BR. Surgical treatment of gallstones. Gastroenterol Clin North Am. 2010;39:229–44, viii.

187. Shoda J, Kawamoto T. Gallbladder cancer and gallstone. J Jpn Biliary Assoc. 2012;26:205–211 (in Japanese with English abstract).

188. Fendrick AM, Gleeson SP, Cabana MD, et al. Asymptomatic gallstones revisited. Is there a role for laparoscopic cholecystectomy? Arch Fam Med. 1993;2:959–68.

     Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

189. Ibrahim M, Sarvepalli S, Morris-Stiff G, et al. Gallstones: watch and wait, or intervene? Cleve Clin J Med. 2018;85:323–31.

     Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

190. Watemberg S, Rahmani H, Avrahami R, et al. Agenesis of the gallbladder found at laparoscopy for cholecystectomy: an unpleasant surprise. Am J Gastroenterol. 1995;90:1020–1.

     CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

191. Reuther G, Kiefer B, Tuchmann A. Cholangiography before biliary surgery: single-shot MR cholangiography versus intravenous cholangiography. Radiology. 1996;198:561–6.

     Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

192. Yamashita H, Chijiiwa K, Ogawa Y, et al. The internal biliary fistula–reappraisal of incidence, type, diagnosis and management of 33 consecutive cases. HPB Surg. 1997;10:143–7.

     Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

193. Kobari M, Ise H, Suzuki N. タイトルなし. The Biliary Tract & Pancreas. 1990;11:1317–1322 (Japanese).

194. Tanaka N, Nobori M, Harihara Y, et al. Surgical treatment of 45 cases of contracted gallbladder. J Japanese Practical Surg Soc. 1990;52:319–325 (in Japanese with English abstract).

195. Otani K, Chijiiwa K, Ohuchida J, et al. Surgical management of gallstones and gallbladder polyps with suspect of cancer. Surgery. 2009;71:29–33 (in Japanese).

     Google Scholar 

196. Engel JM, Deitch EA, Sikkema W. Gallbladder wall thickness: sonographic accuracy and relation to disease. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1980;134:907–9.

     Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

197. Iwashita Y, Hibi T, Ohyama T, et al. Delphi consensus on bile duct injuries during laparoscopic cholecystectomy: an evolutionary cul-de-sac or the birth pangs of a new technical framework? J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci. 2017;24:591–602.

     Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

198. Okamoto K, Suzuki K, Takada T, et al. Tokyo Guidelines 2018: flowchart for the management of acute cholecystitis. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci. 2018;25:55–72.

     Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

199. NIH Consensus Conference. Gallstones and laparoscopic cholecystectomy. JAMA. 1993;269:1018–24.

     Article  Google Scholar 

200. Academic Committee of The Japanese Society for Endoscopic Surgery. Questionnaire Survey on Endoscopic Surgery—Report on the Results of the 14th Total Survey. J Jpn Soc Endosc Surg. 2018;23:727–890 (Japanese)

201. Mentes BB, Akin M, Irkorucu O, et al. Gastrointestinal quality of life in patients with symptomatic or asymptomatic cholelithiasis before and after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc. 2001;15:1267–72.

     Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

202. Wakabayashi G, Iwashita Y, Hibi T, et al. Tokyo Guidelines 2018: surgical management of acute cholecystitis: safe steps in laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis (with videos). J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci. 2018;25:73–86.

     Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

203. Endo I, Takada T, Hwang TL, et al. Optimal treatment strategy for acute cholecystitis based on predictive factors: Japan-Taiwan multicenter cohort study. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci. 2017;24:346–61.

     Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

204. Kiviniemi H, Makela JT, Autio R, et al. Percutaneous cholecystostomy in acute cholecystitis in high-risk patients: an analysis of 69 patients. Int Surg. 1998;83:299–302.

     CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

205. Sugiyama M, Tokuhara M, Atomi Y. Is percutaneous cholecystostomy the optimal treatment for acute cholecystitis in the very elderly? World J Surg. 1998;22:459–63.

     Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

206. Akhan O, Akinci D, Ozmen MN. Percutaneous cholecystostomy. Eur J Radiol. 2002;43:229–36.

     Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

207. Donald JJ, Cheslyn-Curtis S, Gillams AR, et al. Percutaneous cholecystolithotomy: is gall stone recurrence inevitable? Gut. 1994;35:692–5.

     Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

208. Hultman CS, Herbst CA, McCall JM, et al. The efficacy of percutaneous cholecystostomy in critically ill patients. Am Surg. 1996;62:263–9.

     CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

209. Melin MM, Sarr MG, Bender CE, et al. Percutaneous cholecystostomy: a valuable technique in high-risk patients with presumed acute cholecystitis. Br J Surg. 1995;82:1274–7.

     Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

210. Davis CA, Landercasper J, Gundersen LH, et al. Effective use of percutaneous cholecystostomy in high-risk surgical patients: techniques, tube management, and results. Arch Surg. 1999;134:727–31 (discussion 731–2).

211. Jang JW, Lee SS, Song TJ, et al. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided transmural and percutaneous transhepatic gallbladder drainage are comparable for acute cholecystitis. Gastroenterology. 2012;142:805–11.

     Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

212. Itoi T, Coelho-Prabhu N, Baron TH. Endoscopic gallbladder drainage for management of acute cholecystitis. Gastrointest Endosc. 2010;71:1038–45.

     Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

213. Khan MA, Atiq O, Kubiliun N, et al. Efficacy and safety of endoscopic gallbladder drainage in acute cholecystitis: Is it better than percutaneous gallbladder drainage? Gastrointest Endosc. 2017;85(76–87): e3.

     Google Scholar 

214. Mohan BP, Khan SR, Trakroo S, et al. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided gallbladder drainage, transpapillary drainage, or percutaneous drainage in high risk acute cholecystitis patients: a systematic review and comparative meta-analysis. Endoscopy. 2020;52:96–106.

     Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

215. Patel IJ, Davidson JC, Nikolic B, et al. Consensus guidelines for periprocedural management of coagulation status and hemostasis risk in percutaneous image-guided interventions. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2012;23:727–36.

     Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

216. Hamada T, Yasunaga H, Nakai Y, et al. Severe bleeding after percutaneous transhepatic drainage of the biliary system: effect of antithrombotic agents–analysis of 34 606 cases from a Japanese nationwide administrative database. Radiology. 2015;274:605–13.

     Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

217. Kalva NR, Vanar V, Forcione D, et al. Efficacy and Safety of Lumen Apposing Self-Expandable Metal Stents for EUS Guided Cholecystostomy: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review. Can J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2018;2018:7070961.

     Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

218. Mohan BP, Asokkumar R, Shakhatreh M, et al. Adverse events with lumen-apposing metal stents in endoscopic gallbladder drainage: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Endosc Ultrasound. 2019;8:241–8.

     Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

219. Cui Y, Liu Y, Li Z, et al. Appraisal of diagnosis and surgical approach for Mirizzi syndrome. ANZ J Surg. 2012;82:708–13.

     Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

220. Kulkarni SS, Hotta M, Sher L, et al. Complicated gallstone disease: diagnosis and management of Mirizzi syndrome. Surg Endosc. 2017;31:2215–22.

     Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

221. Gelbard R, Khor D, Inaba K, et al. Role of Laparoscopic Surgery in the Current Management of Mirizzi Syndrome. Am Surg. 2018;84:667–71.

     Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

222. Chen H, Siwo EA, Khu M, et al. Current trends in the management of Mirizzi Syndrome: A review of literature. Medicine (Baltimore). 2018;97: e9691.

     Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

223. Beltran MA. Mirizzi syndrome: history, current knowledge and proposal of a simplified classification. World J Gastroenterol. 2012;18:4639–50.

     Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

224. Antoniou SA, Antoniou GA, Makridis C. Laparoscopic treatment of Mirizzi syndrome: a systematic review. Surg Endosc. 2010;24:33–9.

     Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

225. Shirah BH, Shirah HA, Albeladi KB. Mirizzi syndrome: necessity for safe approach in dealing with diagnostic and treatment challenges. Ann Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg. 2017;21:122–30.

     Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

226. Yuan H, Yuan T, Sun X, et al. A Minimally Invasive Strategy for Mirizzi Syndrome Type II: Combined Endoscopic With Laparoscopic Approach. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2016;26:248–52.

     Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

227. Mithani R, Schwesinger WH, Bingener J, et al. The Mirizzi syndrome: multidisciplinary management promotes optimal outcomes. J Gastrointest Surg. 2008;12:1022–8.

     Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

228. Sepe PS, Berzin TM, Sanaka S, et al. Single-operator cholangioscopy for the extraction of cystic duct stones (with video). Gastrointest Endosc. 2012;75:206–10.

     Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

229. Tsuyuguchi T, Sakai Y, Sugiyama H, et al. Long-term follow-up after peroral cholangioscopy-directed lithotripsy in patients with difficult bile duct stones, including Mirizzi syndrome: an analysis of risk factors predicting stone recurrence. Surg Endosc. 2011;25:2179–85.

     Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

230. Bhandari S, Bathini R, Sharma A, et al. Usefulness of single-operator cholangioscopy-guided laser lithotripsy in patients with Mirizzi syndrome and cystic duct stones: experience at a tertiary care center. Gastrointest Endosc. 2016;84:56–61.

     Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

231. Ryozawa S, Itoi T, Katanuma A, et al. Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society guidelines for endoscopic sphincterotomy. Dig Endosc. 2018;30:149–73.

     Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

232. Itoi T, Ryozawa S, Katanuma A, et al. Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society guidelines for endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation. Dig Endosc. 2018;30:293–309.

     Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

233. Yasuda I, Itoi T. Recent advances in endoscopic management of difficult bile duct stones. Dig Endosc. 2013;25:376–85.

     Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

234. Wandling MW, Hungness ES, Pavey ES, et al. Nationwide Assessment of Trends in Choledocholithiasis Management in the United States From 1998 to 2013. JAMA Surg. 2016;151:1125–30.

     Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

235. Ricci C, Pagano N, Taffurelli G, et al. Comparison of Efficacy and Safety of 4 Combinations of Laparoscopic and Intraoperative Techniques for Management of Gallstone Disease With Biliary Duct Calculi: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis. JAMA Surg. 2018;153: e181167.

     Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

236. Xu J, Yang C. Cholecystectomy outcomes after endoscopic sphincterotomy in patients with choledocholithiasis: a meta-analysis. BMC Gastroenterol. 2020;20:229.

     Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

237. Bove A, Di Renzo RM, Palone G, et al. Single-stage procedure for the treatment of cholecysto-choledocolithiasis: a surgical procedures review. Ther Clin Risk Manag. 2018;14:305–12.

     Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

238. De Palma GD. Minimally invasive treatment of cholecysto-choledocal lithiasis: The point of view of the surgical endoscopist. World J Gastrointest Surg. 2013;5:161–6.

     Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

239. Enochsson L, Lindberg B, Swahn F, et al. Intraoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) to remove common bile duct stones during routine laparoscopic cholecystectomy does not prolong hospitalization: a 2-year experience. Surg Endosc. 2004;18:367–71.

     Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

240. Liverani A, Muroni M, Santi F, et al. One-step laparoscopic and endoscopic treatment of gallbladder and common bile duct stones: our experience of the last 9 years in a retrospective study. Am Surg. 2013;79:1243–7.

     Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

241. Lyu Y, Cheng Y, Li T, et al. Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration plus cholecystectomy versus endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography plus laparoscopic cholecystectomy for cholecystocholedocholithiasis: a meta-analysis. Surg Endosc. 2019;33:3275–86.

     Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

242. Schreurs WH, Vles WJ, Stuifbergen WH, et al. Endoscopic management of common bile duct stones leaving the gallbladder in situ. A cohort study with long-term follow-up. Dig Surg. 2004;21:60–4 (discussion 65).

243. Boerma D, Rauws EA, Keulemans YC, et al. Wait-and-see policy or laparoscopic cholecystectomy after endoscopic sphincterotomy for bile-duct stones: a randomised trial. Lancet. 2002;360:761–5.

     Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

244. Dasari BV, Tan CJ, Gurusamy KS, et al. Surgical versus endoscopic treatment of bile duct stones. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;2013:CD003327.

245. Singh AN, Kilambi R. Single-stage laparoscopic common bile duct exploration and cholecystectomy versus two-stage endoscopic stone extraction followed by laparoscopic cholecystectomy for patients with gallbladder stones with common bile duct stones: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials with trial sequential analysis. Surg Endosc. 2018;32:3763–76.

     Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

246. Bansal VK, Misra MC, Rajan K, et al. Single-stage laparoscopic common bile duct exploration and cholecystectomy versus two-stage endoscopic stone extraction followed by laparoscopic cholecystectomy for patients with concomitant gallbladder stones and common bile duct stones: a randomized controlled trial. Surg Endosc. 2014;28:875–85.

     Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

247. Topal B, Vromman K, Aerts R, et al. Hospital cost categories of one-stage versus two-stage management of common bile duct stones. Surg Endosc. 2010;24:413–6.

     Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

248. Rogers SJ, Cello JP, Horn JK, et al. Prospective randomized trial of LC+LCBDE vs ERCP/S+LC for common bile duct stone disease. Arch Surg. 2010;145:28–33.

     Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

249. Tokumura H, Matsumura N, Musha H, et al. Recurrence of Common bile duct stones after surgical stone removal with preservation of papillary function. Tan to Sui. 2010;31:305–8 (in Japanese).

     Google Scholar 

250. Doi S, Yasuda I, Mabuchi M, et al. Long term outcome after EST and EPBD for bile duct stones with gallbladder stones. Tan to Sui. 2014;35:1365–1369 (in Japanese)

251. Hasegawa H, Yamamoto H, Ymamoto R, et al. Results of the laparoscopic management of common bile duct stones –Significance of preservation of sphincter function. Tan to Sui. 2014;35:1339–43 (in Japanese).

     Google Scholar 

252. Yoshikawa J, Matsumoto J. Evaluation of endoscopic sphincter of Oddi manometry in patients with biliary diseases. J Jpn Biliary Assoc. 2003;17:396–401 (in Japanese with English abstract)

253. Naito T, Hata T, Iseki M, et al. Manometric study of the bile duct. Tan to Sui. 2019;40:203–6 (in Japanese).

     Google Scholar 

254. Aoki Y, Tanimura H, Kawashima H, et al. Cholescintigraphic observation of the sphincter of Oddi motor activity in patients with gallstone. Nihon Geka Hokan. 1989;58:289–98.

     CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

255. Takehara Y. Assessment of sphincter of Oddi dysfunction with pharmaco-dynamic (functional) MRCP. Tan to Sui. 2008;29:813–22 (in Japanese).

     Google Scholar 

256. Grubnik VV, Tkachenko AI, Ilyashenko VV, et al. Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration versus open surgery: comparative prospective randomized trial. Surg Endosc. 2012;26:2165–71.

     Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

257. Wang X, Dai C, Jiang Z, et al. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography versus laparoscopic exploration for common bile duct stones in post-cholecystectomy patients: a retrospective study. Oncotarget. 2017;8:82114–22.

     Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

258. Johnson AG, Hosking SW. Appraisal of the management of bile duct stones. Br J Surg. 1987;74:555–60.

     Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

259. Joyce WP, Keane R, Burke GJ, et al. Identification of bile duct stones in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Br J Surg. 1991;78:1174–6.

     Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

260. Sarli L, Costi R, Gobbi S, et al. Asymptomatic bile duct stones: selection criteria for intravenous cholangiography and/or endoscopic retrograde cholangiography prior to laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2000;12:1175–80.

     Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

261. Horwood J, Akbar F, Davis K, et al. Prospective evaluation of a selective approach to cholangiography for suspected common bile duct stones. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2010;92:206–10.

     Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

262. Kim SB, Kim KH, Kim TN. Comparison of Outcomes and Complications of Endoscopic Common Bile Duct Stone Removal Between Asymptomatic and Symptomatic Patients. Dig Dis Sci. 2016;61:1172–7.

     Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

263. Hakuta R, Hamada T, Nakai Y, et al. Natural history of asymptomatic bile duct stones and association of endoscopic treatment with clinical outcomes. J Gastroenterol. 2020;55:78–85.

     Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

264. Itoi T, Tsuyuguchi T, Takada T, et al. TG13 indications and techniques for biliary drainage in acute cholangitis (with videos). J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci. 2013;20:71–80.

     Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

265. Lee JK, Lee SH, Kang BK, et al. Is it necessary to insert a nasobiliary drainage tube routinely after endoscopic clearance of the common bile duct in patients with choledocholithiasis-induced cholangitis? A prospective, randomized trial. Gastrointest Endosc. 2010;71:105–10.

     Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

266. Ueki T, Otani K, Fujimura N, et al. Comparison between emergency and elective endoscopic sphincterotomy in patients with acute cholangitis due to choledocholithiasis: is emergency endoscopic sphincterotomy safe? J Gastroenterol. 2009;44:1080–8.

     Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

267. Eto K, Kawakami H, Haba S, et al. Single-stage endoscopic treatment for mild to moderate acute cholangitis associated with choledocholithiasis: a multicenter, non-randomized, open-label and exploratory clinical trial. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci. 2015;22:825–30.

     Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

268. Ayub K, Imada R, Slavin J. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in gallstone-associated acute pancreatitis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2004;(4):CD003630. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD003630.pub2.

269. Petrov MS, van Santvoort HC, Besselink MG, et al. Early endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography versus conservative management in acute biliary pancreatitis without cholangitis: a meta-analysis of randomized trials. Ann Surg. 2008;247:250–7.

     Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

270. Uy MC, Daez ML, Sy PP, et al. Early ERCP in acute gallstone pancreatitis without cholangitis: a meta-analysis. JOP. 2009;10:299–305.

     PubMed  Google Scholar 

271. Tse F, Yuan Y. Early routine endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography strategy versus early conservative management strategy in acute gallstone pancreatitis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;(5):CD009779.

272. Burstow MJ, Yunus RM, Hossain MB, et al. Meta-Analysis of Early Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) +/- Endoscopic Sphincterotomy (ES) Versus Conservative Management for Gallstone Pancreatitis (GSP). Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2015;25:185–203.

     Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

273. Ersoz G, Tekesin O, Ozutemiz AO, et al. Biliary sphincterotomy plus dilation with a large balloon for bile duct stones that are difficult to extract. Gastrointest Endosc. 2003;57:156–9.

     Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

274. Kim TH, Kim JH, Seo DW, et al. International consensus guidelines for endoscopic papillary large-balloon dilation. Gastrointest Endosc. 2016;83:37–47.

     Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

275. Feng Y, Zhu H, Chen X, et al. Comparison of endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation and endoscopic sphincterotomy for retrieval of choledocholithiasis: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Gastroenterol. 2012;47:655–63.

     Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

276. Liu Y, Su P, Lin Y, et al. Endoscopic sphincterotomy plus balloon dilation versus endoscopic sphincterotomy for choledocholithiasis: A meta-analysis. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2013;28:937–45.

     Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

277. Yang XM, Hu B. Endoscopic sphincterotomy plus large-balloon dilation vs endoscopic sphincterotomy for choledocholithiasis: a meta-analysis. World J Gastroenterol. 2013;19:9453–60.

     Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

278. Jin PP, Cheng JF, Liu D, et al. Endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation vs endoscopic sphincterotomy for retrieval of common bile duct stones: a meta-analysis. World J Gastroenterol. 2014;20:5548–56.

     Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

279. Dong SQ, Singh TP, Zhao Q, et al. Sphincterotomy plus balloon dilation versus sphincterotomy alone for choledocholithiasis: a meta-analysis. Endoscopy. 2019;51:763–71.

     Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

280. Liu P, Lin H, Chen Y, et al. Comparison of endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation with and without a prior endoscopic sphincterotomy for the treatment of patients with large and/or multiple common bile duct stones: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ther Clin Risk Manag. 2019;15:91–101.

     Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

281. Kim KH, Rhu JH, Kim TN. Recurrence of bile duct stones after endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation combined with limited sphincterotomy: long-term follow-up study. Gut Liver. 2012;6:107–12.

     Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

282. Maruta A, Iwashita T, Uemura S, et al. Comparison of late adverse events after endoscopic sphincterotomy versus endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation for common bile duct stones: A propensity score-based cohort analysis. Dig Endosc. 2018;30:493–500.

     Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

283. Miyoshi H, Inui K, Yamamoto S, et al. Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy for Bile Duct Stones. Clin Gastroenterol. 2017;32:57–61 (in Japanese with English abstract)

284. Jin Z, Wei Y, Tang X, et al. Single-operator peroral cholangioscope in treating difficult biliary stones: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Dig Endosc. 2019;31:256–69.

     Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

285. Yasuda I. Recent advances in endoscopic management of difficult bile duct stones. Nihon Shokakibyo Gakkai Zasshi. 2016;113:585–93 (in Japanese).

     PubMed  Google Scholar 

286. Gad EH, Zakaria H, Kamel Y, et al. Surgical (Open and laparoscopic) management of large difficult CBD stones after different sessions of endoscopic failure: A retrospective cohort study. Ann Med Surg (Lond). 2019;43:52–63.

     Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

287. Lee JH, Kim HW, Kang DH, et al. Usefulness of percutaneous transhepatic cholangioscopic lithotomy for removal of difficult common bile duct stones. Clin Endosc. 2013;46:65–70.

     Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

288. Jeong EJ, Kang DH, Kim DU, et al. Percutaneous transhepatic choledochoscopic lithotomy as a rescue therapy for removal of bile duct stones in Billroth II gastrectomy patients who are difficult to perform ERCP. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2009;21:1358–62.

     Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

289. Thon HJ, Loffler A, Buess G, et al. Is ERCP a reasonable diagnostic method for excluding pancreatic and hepatobiliary disease in patients with a Billroth II resection? Endoscopy. 1983;15:93–5.

     Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

290. Forbes A, Cotton PB. ERCP and sphincterotomy after Billroth II gastrectomy. Gut. 1984;25:971–4.

     Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

291. Osnes M, Rosseland AR, Aabakken L. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiography and endoscopic papillotomy in patients with a previous Billroth-II resection. Gut. 1986;27:1193–8.

     Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

292. Nakahara K, Horaguchi J, Fujita N, et al. Therapeutic endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography using an anterior oblique-viewing endoscope for bile duct stones in patients with prior Billroth II gastrectomy. J Gastroenterol. 2009;44:212–7.

     Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

293. Choi CW, Choi JS, Kang DH, et al. Endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation in Billroth II gastrectomy patients with bile duct stones. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2012;27:256–60.

     Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

294. Shimatani M, Hatanaka H, Kogure H, et al. Diagnostic and Therapeutic Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiography Using a Short-Type Double-Balloon Endoscope in Patients With Altered Gastrointestinal Anatomy: A Multicenter Prospective Study in Japan. Am J Gastroenterol. 2016;111:1750–8.

     Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

295. Yane K, Katanuma A, Maguchi H, et al. Short-type single-balloon enteroscope-assisted ERCP in postsurgical altered anatomy: potential factors affecting procedural failure. Endoscopy. 2017;49:69–74.

     PubMed  Google Scholar 

296. Itoi T, Ishii K, Sofuni A, et al. Long- and short-type double-balloon enteroscopy-assisted therapeutic ERCP for intact papilla in patients with a Roux-en-Y anastomosis. Surg Endosc. 2011;25:713–21.

     Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

297. Ishii K, Itoi T, Tonozuka R, et al. Balloon enteroscopy-assisted ERCP in patients with Roux-en-Y gastrectomy and intact papillae (with videos). Gastrointest Endosc. 2016;83(377–86): e6.

     Google Scholar 

298. De Koning M, Moreels TG. Comparison of double-balloon and single-balloon enteroscope for therapeutic endoscopic retrograde cholangiography after Roux-en-Y small bowel surgery. BMC Gastroenterol. 2016;16:98.

     Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

299. Yamauchi H, Kida M, Okuwaki K, et al. Therapeutic peroral direct cholangioscopy using a single balloon enteroscope in patients with Roux-en-Y anastomosis (with videos). Surg Endosc. 2018;32:498–506.

     Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

300. Itoi T, Ishii K, Itokawa F, et al. Large balloon papillary dilation for removal of bile duct stones in patients who have undergone a billroth ii gastrectomy. Dig Endosc. 2010;22(Suppl 1):S98–102.

     Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

301. Kim GH, Kang DH, Song GA, et al. Endoscopic removal of bile-duct stones by using a rotatable papillotome and a large-balloon dilator in patients with a Billroth II gastrectomy (with video). Gastrointest Endosc. 2008;67:1134–8.

     Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

302. Itoi T, Sofuni A, Tsuchiya T, et al. Endoscopic ultrasonography-guided transhepatic antegrade stone removal in patients with surgically altered anatomy: case series and technical review (with videos). J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci. 2014;21:E86-93.

     Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

303. Iwashita T, Nakai Y, Hara K, et al. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided antegrade treatment of bile duct stone in patients with surgically altered anatomy: a multicenter retrospective cohort study. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci. 2016;23:227–33.

     Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

304. Miura F, Okamoto K, Takada T, et al. Tokyo Guidelines 2018: initial management of acute biliary infection and flowchart for acute cholangitis. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci. 2018;25:31–40.

     Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

305. Sharaiha RZ, Khan MA, Kamal F, et al. Efficacy and safety of EUS-guided biliary drainage in comparison with percutaneous biliary drainage when ERCP fails: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastrointest Endosc. 2017;85:904–14.

     Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

306. Baron TH, Harewood GC. Endoscopic balloon dilation of the biliary sphincter compared to endoscopic biliary sphincterotomy for removal of common bile duct stones during ERCP: a metaanalysis of randomized, controlled trials. Am J Gastroenterol. 2004;99:1455–60.

     Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

307. Weinberg BM, Shindy W, Lo S. Endoscopic balloon sphincter dilation (sphincteroplasty) versus sphincterotomy for common bile duct stones. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006;2006:CD004890.

     PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

308. Liu Y, Su P, Lin S, et al. Endoscopic papillary balloon dilatation versus endoscopic sphincterotomy in the treatment for choledocholithiasis: a meta-analysis. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2012;27:464–71.

     Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

309. Zhao HC, He L, Zhou DC, et al. Meta-analysis comparison of endoscopic papillary balloon dilatation and endoscopic sphincteropapillotomy. World J Gastroenterol. 2013;19:3883–91.

     Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

310. Takahara N, Isayama H, Sasaki T, et al. Endoscopic papillary balloon dilation for bile duct stones in patients on hemodialysis. J Gastroenterol. 2012;47:918–23.

     Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

311. Kawabe T, Komatsu Y, Tada M, et al. Endoscopic papillary balloon dilation in cirrhotic patients: removal of common bile duct stones without sphincterotomy. Endoscopy. 1996;28:694–8.

     Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

312. Hung TH, Tseng CW, Chen YC, et al. Endoscopic papillary balloon dilation decreases the risk of bleeding in cirrhotic patients compared with endoscopic biliary sphincterotomy: A national population-based study. Medicine (Baltimore). 2019;98: e16529.

     Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

313. Choi D, Lim HK, Kim MJ, et al. Liver abscess after percutaneous radiofrequency ablation for hepatocellular carcinomas: frequency and risk factors. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2005;184:1860–7.

     Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

314. Yasuda I, Fujita N, Maguchi H, et al. Long-term outcomes after endoscopic sphincterotomy versus endoscopic papillary balloon dilation for bile duct stones. Gastrointest Endosc. 2010;72:1185–91.

     Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

315. Fujimoto K, Fujishiro M, Kato M, et al. Guidelines for gastroenterological endoscopy in patients undergoing antithrombotic treatment. Dig Endosc. 2014;26:1–14.

     Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

316. Kato M, Uedo N, Hokimoto S, et al. Guidelines for Gastroenterological Endoscopy in Patients Undergoing Antithrombotic Treatment: 2017 Appendix on Anticoagulants Including Direct Oral Anticoagulants. Dig Endosc. 2018;30:433–40.

     Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

317. Mukai S, Itoi T, Baron TH, et al. Indications and techniques of biliary drainage for acute cholangitis in updated Tokyo Guidelines 2018. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci. 2017;24:537–49.

     Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

318. Slattery E, Kale V, Anwar W, et al. Role of long-term biliary stenting in choledocholithiasis. Dig Endosc. 2013;25:440–3.

     Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

319. Chopra KB, Peters RA, O’Toole PA, et al. Randomised study of endoscopic biliary endoprosthesis versus duct clearance for bileduct stones in high-risk patients. Lancet. 1996;348:791–3.

     Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

320. Akazawa Y, Ohtani M, Nosaka T, et al. Long-term prognosis after biliary stenting for common bile duct stones in high-risk elderly patients. J Dig Dis. 2018;19:626–34.

     Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

321. Seitz U, Bapaye A, Bohnacker S, et al. Advances in therapeutic endoscopic treatment of common bile duct stones. World J Surg. 1998;22:1133–44.

     Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

322. Itoi T, Wang HP. Endoscopic management of bile duct stones. Dig Endosc. 2010;22(Suppl 1):S69-75.

     Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

323. ASoP Committee, Maple JT, Ikenberry SO, et al. The role of endoscopy in the management of choledocholithiasis. Gastrointest Endosc. 2011;74:731–44.

     Article  Google Scholar 

324. Ishiwatari H, Kawakami H, Hisai H, et al. Balloon catheter versus basket catheter for endoscopic bile duct stone extraction: a multicenter randomized trial. Endoscopy. 2016;48:350–7.

     Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

325. Ozawa N, Yasuda I, Doi S, et al. Prospective randomized study of endoscopic biliary stone extraction using either a basket or a balloon catheter: the BasketBall study. J Gastroenterol. 2017;52:623–630.

326. Manes G, Paspatis G, Aabakken L, et al. Endoscopic management of common bile duct stones: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) guideline. Endoscopy. 2019;51:472–91.

     Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

327. Hammarstrom LE, Holmin T, Stridbeck H, et al. Long-term follow-up of a prospective randomized study of endoscopic versus surgical treatment of bile duct calculi in patients with gallbladder in situ. Br J Surg. 1995;82:1516–21.

     Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

328. Targarona EM, Ayuso RM, Bordas JM, et al. Randomised trial of endoscopic sphincterotomy with gallbladder left in situ versus open surgery for common bileduct calculi in high-risk patients. Lancet. 1996;347:926–9.

     Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

329. Suc B, Escat J, Cherqui D, et al. Surgery vs endoscopy as primary treatment in symptomatic patients with suspected common bile duct stones: a multicenter randomized trial. French Associations for Surgical Research. Arch Surg. 1998;133:702–8.

     Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

330. Lau JY, Leow CK, Fung TM, et al. Cholecystectomy or gallbladder in situ after endoscopic sphincterotomy and bile duct stone removal in Chinese patients. Gastroenterology. 2006;130:96–103.

     Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

331. McAlister VC, Davenport E, Renouf E. Cholecystectomy deferral in patients with endoscopic sphincterotomy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007;2007:CD006233.

     PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

332. Park BK, Seo JH, Jeon HH, et al. A nationwide population-based study of common bile duct stone recurrence after endoscopic stone removal in Korea. J Gastroenterol. 2018;53:670–8.

     Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

333. Cui ML, Cho JH, Kim TN. Long-term follow-up study of gallbladder in situ after endoscopic common duct stone removal in Korean patients. Surg Endosc. 2013;27:1711–6.

     Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

334. Suzuki Y, Mori T, Yokoyama M, et al. Effect of UDCA for bile duct stone recurrence and development of cholangiocarcinoma. KanTanSui. 2018;77:77–9 (in Japanese).

     Google Scholar 

335. Yamamoto R, Tazuma S, Kanno K, et al. Ursodeoxycholic acid after bile duct stone removal and risk factors for recurrence: a randomized trial. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci. 2016;23:132–6.

     Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

336. Akiyama S, Imamura T, Tamura T, et al. Recurrent common bile duct stones composed of ursodeoxycholic acid: a report of four cases. Intern Med. 2014;53:2489–92.

     Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

337. Nakagawara H, Yamao K, Nomura S, et al. A case of common bile duct stones composed of ursodeoxycholic acid associated with hereditary spherocytosis. J Jpn Biliary Assoc. 2017;31:279–283 (in Japanese with English abstract).

338. Lin CC, Lin PY, Ko CJ, et al. Hepatic resection for bilateral hepatolithiasis: a 20-year experience. ANZ J Surg. 2013;83:978–84.

     Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

339. Yang T, Lau WY, Lai EC, et al. Hepatectomy for bilateral primary hepatolithiasis: a cohort study. Ann Surg. 2010;251:84–90.

     Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

340. Kusano T, Isa T, Ohtsubo M, et al. Natural progression of untreated hepatolithiasis that shows no clinical signs at its initial presentation. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2001;33:114–7.

     Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

341. Kim KH, Sung CK, Park BG, et al. Clinical significance of intrahepatic biliary stricture in efficacy of hepatic resection for intrahepatic stones. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg. 1998;5:303–8.

     Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

342. Adamek HE, Schneider AR, Adamek MU, et al. Treatment of difficult intrahepatic stones by using extracorporeal and intracorporeal lithotripsy techniques: 10 years’ experience in 55 patients. Scand J Gastroenterol. 1999;34:1157–61.

     Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

343. Hochberger J, Tex S, Maiss J, et al. Management of difficult common bile duct stones. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am. 2003;13:623–34.

     Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

344. Amplatz S, Piazzi L, Felder M, et al. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for clearance of refractory bile duct stones. Dig Liver Dis. 2007;39:267–72.

     Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

345. Ellis RD, Jenkins AP, Thompson RP, et al. Clearance of refractory bile duct stones with extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy. Gut. 2000;47:728–31.

     Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

346. Muratori R, Brambati M, Rossi A, et al. Extracorporeal lithotripsy of intrahepatic stones with associated strictures of intrahepatic biliary ducts. Ital J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 1998;30:624–30.

     CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

347. Kim MH, Lee SK, Min YI, et al. Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy of primary intrahepatic stones. Korean J Intern Med. 1992;7:25–30.

     Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

348. Honjo M, Itoi T, Sofuni A, et al. Nonsurgical treatment for hepatolithiasis. Tan to Sui. 2013;34:1175–82 (in Japanese).

     Google Scholar 

349. Han JK, Choi BI, Park JH, et al. Percutaneous removal of retained intrahepatic stones with a pre-shaped angulated catheter: review of 96 patients. Br J Radiol. 1992;65:9–13.

     Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

350. Miyoshi H, Inui K, Katano Y, et al. Percutaneous transhepatic management for postoperative anastomotic segment biliary stenosis, cholangitis and intrahepatic stones. Tan to Sui. 2018;39:395–401 (in Japanese).

     Google Scholar 

351. Oh HC, Lee SK, Lee TY, et al. Analysis of percutaneous transhepatic cholangioscopy-related complications and the risk factors for those complications. Endoscopy. 2007;39:731–6.

     Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

352. Furuta T, Kato M, Ito T, et al. 6th report of endoscopic complications: Results of theJapan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Sociery Survey from 2008 to 2012. Gastroenterological Endoscopy. 2016;58:1466–1491 (in Japanese with English abstract).

353. Lamberts MP, Den Oudsten BL, Gerritsen JJ, et al. Prospective multicentre cohort study of patient-reported outcomes after cholecystectomy for uncomplicated symptomatic cholecystolithiasis. Br J Surg. 2015;102:1402–9.

     Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

354. Wennmacker SZ, Dijkgraaf MGW, Westert GP, et al. Persistent abdominal pain after laparoscopic cholecystectomy is associated with increased healthcare consumption and sick leave. Surgery. 2018;163:661–6.

     Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

355. Latenstein CSS, Wennmacker SZ, de Jong JJ, et al. Etiologies of long-term postcholecystectomy symptoms: a systematic review. Gastroenterol Res Pract. 2019;2019:4278373.

     Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

356. Sauter GH, Moussavian AC, Meyer G, et al. Bowel habits and bile acid malabsorption in the months after cholecystectomy. Am J Gastroenterol. 2002;97:1732–5.

     Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

357. Fort JM, Azpiroz F, Casellas F, et al. Bowel habit after cholecystectomy: physiological changes and clinical implications. Gastroenterology. 1996;111:617–22.

     Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

358. Arlow FL, Dekovich AA, Priest RJ, et al. Bile acid-mediated postcholecystectomy diarrhea. Arch Intern Med. 1987;147:1327–9.

     Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

359. Fromm H, Tunuguntla AK, Malavolti M, et al. Absence of significant role of bile acids in diarrhea of a heterogeneous group of postcholecystectomy patients. Dig Dis Sci. 1987;32:33–44.

     Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

360. Sciarretta G, Furno A, Mazzoni M, et al. Post-cholecystectomy diarrhea: evidence of bile acid malabsorption assessed by SeHCAT test. Am J Gastroenterol. 1992;87:1852–4.

     CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

361. Suhr O, Danielsson A, Nyhlin H, et al. Bile acid malabsorption demonstrated by SeHCAT in chronic diarrhoea, with special reference to the impact of cholecystectomy. Scand J Gastroenterol. 1988;23:1187–94.

     Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

362. Porr PJ, Szantay J, Rusu M. Post-cholecystectomy syndrome and magnesium deficiency. J Am Coll Nutr. 2004;23:745S-S747.

     Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

363. Schreurs WH, Juttmann JR, Stuifbergen WN, et al. Management of common bile duct stones: selective endoscopic retrograde cholangiography and endoscopic sphincterotomy: short- and long-term results. Surg Endosc. 2002;16:1068–72.

     Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

364. Sugiyama M, Atomi Y. Risk factors predictive of late complications after endoscopic sphincterotomy for bile duct stones: long-term (more than 10 years) follow-up study. Am J Gastroenterol. 2002;97:2763–7.

     Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

365. Ohashi A, Ueno N, Tamada K, et al. Assessment of residual bile duct stones with use of intraductal US during endoscopic balloon sphincteroplasty: comparison with balloon cholangiography. Gastrointest Endosc. 1999;49:328–33.

     Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

366. Hammarstrom LE, Stridbeck H, Ihse I. Long-term follow-up after endoscopic treatment of bile duct calculi in cholecystectomized patients. World J Surg. 1996;20:272–6.

     Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

367. Kageoka M, Watanabe F, Maruyama Y, et al. Long-term prognosis of patients after endoscopic sphincterotomy for choledocholithiasis. Dig Endosc. 2009;21:170–5.

     Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

368. Tsujino T, Kawabe T, Isayama H, et al. Management of late biliary complications in patients with gallbladder stones in situ after endoscopic papillary balloon dilation. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2009;21:376–80.

     Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

369. Fujimoto T, Tsuyuguchi T, Sakai Y, et al. Long-term outcome of endoscopic papillotomy for choledocholithiasis with cholecystolithiasis. Dig Endosc. 2010;22:95–100.

     Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

370. Kogure H, Tsujino T, Isayama H, et al. Short- and long-term outcomes of endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation with or without sphincterotomy for removal of large bile duct stones. Scand J Gastroenterol. 2014;49:121–8.

     Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

371. Chan HH, Lai KH, Lin CK, et al. Endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation alone without sphincterotomy for the treatment of large common bile duct stones. BMC Gastroenterol. 2011;11:69.

     Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

372. Kim KY, Han J, Kim HG, et al. Late Complications and Stone Recurrence Rates after Bile Duct Stone Removal by Endoscopic Sphincterotomy and Large Balloon Dilation are Similar to Those after Endoscopic Sphincterotomy Alone. Clin Endosc. 2013;46:637–42.

     Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

373. Paspatis GA, Paraskeva K, Vardas E, et al. Long-term recurrence of bile duct stones after endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation with sphincterotomy: 4-year extended follow-up of a randomized trial. Surg Endosc. 2017;31:650–5.

     Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

374. Jeong S, Ki SH, Lee DH, et al. Endoscopic large-balloon sphincteroplasty without preceding sphincterotomy for the removal of large bile duct stones: a preliminary study. Gastrointest Endosc. 2009;70:915–22.

     Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

375. Tanaka M, Takahata S, Konomi H, et al. Long-term consequence of endoscopic sphincterotomy for bile duct stones. Gastrointest Endosc. 1998;48:465–9.

     Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

376. Tanaka M, Ogawa Y, Naritomi G, et al. Clinical significance of endoscopic sphincterotomy compared with surgical common bile duct exploration and surgical sphincterotomy. J Jpn Surg Soc. 1992;93:1119–22 (in Japanese with English abstract).

377. Paganini AM, Guerrieri M, Sarnari J, et al. Thirteen years’ experience with laparoscopic transcystic common bile duct exploration for stones. Effectiveness and long-term results. Surg Endosc. 2007;21:34–40.

     Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

378. Tokumura H, Matsumura N, Nomura R. Laparoscopic management of common bile duct stones. J Jpn Biliary Assoc. 2012;26:40–45 (in Japanese with English abstract).

379. Uchiyama K, Onishi H, Tani M, et al. Long-term prognosis after treatment of patients with choledocholithiasis. Ann Surg. 2003;238:97–102.

     Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

380. Natsui M, Saito Y, Abe S, et al. Long-term outcomes of endoscopic papillary balloon dilation and endoscopic sphincterotomy for bile duct stones. Dig Endosc. 2013;25:313–21.

     Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

381. Ohya T, Tazuma S, Kanno K, et al. A nation-wide survey of hepatolithiasis. J Jpn Biliary Assoc. 2013;27:788–794 (in Japanese with English abstract)

382. Yoon YS, Han HS, Shin SH, et al. Laparoscopic treatment for intrahepatic duct stones in the era of laparoscopy: laparoscopic intrahepatic duct exploration and laparoscopic hepatectomy. Ann Surg. 2009;249:286–91.

     Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

383. Lai EC, Ngai TC, Yang GP, et al. Laparoscopic approach of surgical treatment for primary hepatolithiasis: a cohort study. Am J Surg. 2010;199:716–21.

     Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

384. Tu JF, Jiang FZ, Zhu HL, et al. Laparoscopic vs open left hepatectomy for hepatolithiasis. World J Gastroenterol. 2010;16:2818–23.

     Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

385. Ministry Of Health, Labour and Welfare. Research and Study on Refractory Liver and Biliary Diseases Tokyo: Bunkodo; 2011;32–59 (in Japanese).

386. Li EL, Yuan RF, Liao WJ, et al. Intrahepatic bile duct exploration lithotomy is a useful adjunctive hepatectomy method for bilateral primary hepatolithiasis: an eight-year experience at a single centre. BMC Surg. 2019;19:16.

     Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

387. Uchiyama K, Kawai M, Ueno M, et al. Reducing residual and recurrent stones by hepatectomy for hepatolithiasis. J Gastrointest Surg. 2007;11:626–30.

     Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

388. Otani K, Shimizu S, Chijiiwa K, et al. Comparison of treatments for hepatolithiasis: hepatic resection versus cholangioscopic lithotomy. J Am Coll Surg. 1999;189:177–82.

     Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

This article was supported by a Grant-in-Aid from the JSGE. The authors thank Shigeto Ishii (Department of Gastroenterology, Graduate School of Medicine, Juntendo University), Tatsuya Ishii (Center for Gastroenterology, Teine Keijinkai Hospital), Akinori Suzuki (Department of Gastroenterology, Graduate School of Medicine, Juntendo University), Yusuke Takasaki (Department of Gastroenterology, Graduate School of Medicine, Juntendo University), Kazuhiro Takami (Division of Hepato-biliary and Pancreatic Surgery Tohoku Medical and Pharmaceutical University), Ko Tomishima (Department of Gastroenterology, Graduate School of Medicine, Juntendo University), Haruka Toyonaga (Center for Gastroenterology, Teine Keijinkai Hospital), Hiroshi Nasuno (Center for Gastroenterology, Teine Keijinkai Hospital), Toshio Fujisawa (Department of Gastroenterology, Graduate School of Medicine, Juntendo University), Yuki Honma (Department of Gastroenterological Surgery, Yokohama City University Graduate School of Medicine), Ryusei Matsuyama (Department of Gastroenterological Surgery, Yokohama City University Graduate School of Medicine), Kuniharu Yamamoto (Division of Hepato-biliary and Pancreatic Surgery Tohoku Medical and Pharmaceutical University) for great assistance with data collection, data analysis, and manuscript preparation.

1. Guidelines Committee for Creating and Evaluating the “Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines for Cholelithiasis’’, The Japanese Society of Gastroenterology, 6F Shimbashi i-MARK Building, 2-6-2 Shimbashi, Minato-ku, Tokyo, 105-0004, Japan

   Naotaka Fujita, Ichiro Yasuda, Itaru Endo, Hiroyuki Isayama, Takuji Iwashita, Toshiharu Ueki, Kenichiro Uemura, Akiko Umezawa, Akio Katanuma, Yu Katayose, Yutaka Suzuki, Junichi Shoda, Toshio Tsuyuguchi, Toshifumi Wakai, Kazuo Inui, Michiaki Unno, Yoshifumi Takeyama, Takao Itoi, Kazuhiko Koike & Satoshi Mochida

2. Miyagi Medical Check-up Plaza, 1-6-9 Oroshi-machi, Wakabayashi-ku, Sendai, Miyagi, 984-0015, Japan

   Naotaka Fujita

1. Naotaka Fujita
2. Ichiro Yasuda
3. Itaru Endo
4. Hiroyuki Isayama
5. Takuji Iwashita
6. Toshiharu Ueki
7. Kenichiro Uemura
8. Akiko Umezawa
9. Akio Katanuma
10. Yu Katayose
11. Yutaka Suzuki
12. Junichi Shoda
13. Toshio Tsuyuguchi
14. Toshifumi Wakai
15. Kazuo Inui
16. Michiaki Unno
17. Yoshifumi Takeyama
18. Takao Itoi
19. Kazuhiko Koike
20. Satoshi Mochida

Writing—original draft: NF, IY, IE, HI, TI, TU, KU, AU, AK, YK, YS. Writing—review and editing: NF and IY. Supervision: JS, TT, TW, KI, MU, YT, TI, KK and SM. Approval of final manuscript: all authors.

Correspondence to Naotaka Fujita.

Any financial relationship with enterprises, businesses or academic institutions in the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript are listed as follows: (1) those from which the authors, the spouse, partner or immediate relatives of the authors have received individually any income, honoraria or any other type of renumeration; Asahi Kasei Pharma, Olympus Corporation, Daiichi Sankyo, Fuji Film, Taiho Pharmaceutical, Denka, and (2) those from which the authors have received scholarship/research grant; Taiho Pharmaceutical, Tsumura & Co., Bristol Myers Squibb, Ajimonoto, Hitachi, Boston Scientific Japan, Denka, Hospital Administration Niigata Prefecture, Brourbon, Yasuda Yogurt, Astellas Pharmaceutical, Abbvie, EA Pharma, Eisai, MSD, Ono Pharmaceutical, Covidien Japan, Taiho Pharmaceutical, Takeda Pharmaceutical, Chugai Pharmaceutical, Novaltis Japan, Bayer Japan, Asahi Kasei Pharma, Nippon Kayaku, Mochida Pharmaceutical, Eli Lilly Japan, Gadelius Medical, Boston Scientific Japan, JRA Facilities, and (3) those from which the academic institutions of the authors received support (commercial/academic cooperation); Eisai.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

The original version of this article appeared in Japanese as ‘‘Tansekisho Shinryo Guidelines 2021,’’ from the Japanese Society of Gastroenterology published by Nankodo, Tokyo, in 2021. Please see the article on the standards, methods, and process of developing guidelines.

The members of the Guidelines Committee are listed in the Appendix.

The members of the Guidelines Committee who created and evaluated the Japanese Society of Gastroenterology, ‘‘Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for cholelithiasis’’ are listed below.

Creation Committee: Chair: Naotaka Fujita (Miyagi Medical Check-up Plaza). Vice-chair: Itaru Endo (Department of Gastroenterological Surgery, Yokohama City University), Ichiro Yasuda (Third Department of Internal Medicine, University of Toyama, Toyama). Members: Hiroyuki Isayama (Department of Gastroenterology, Graduate School of Medicine, Juntendo University), Takuji Iwashita (First Department of Internal Medicine, Gifu University Hospital) Toshiharu Ueki (Department of Gastroenterology, Fukuoka University Chikushi Hospital), Kenichiro Uemura (Department of Surgery, Graduate School of Biomedical & Health Sciences, Hiroshima University), Akiko Umezawa (Minimally Invasive Surgery Center, Yotsuya Medical Cube), Akio Katanuma (Center for Gastroenterology, Teine-Keijinkai Hospital), Yu Katayose (Division of Hepato-biliary-pancreatic Surgery, Tohoku Medical and Pharmaceutical University), Yutaka Suzuki (Department of General and Gastroenterological Surgery, Kyorin University School of Medicine).

Evaluation Committee: Chair: Michiaki Unno (Department of Surgery, Tohoku University Graduate School of Medicine). Vice-chair: Kazuo Inui (Department of Gastroenterology Yamashita Hospital). Members: Junichi Shoda (Division of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Tsukuba), Toshio Tsuyuguchi (Department of Gastroenterology, Chiba Prefectural Sawara Hospital), Toshifumi Wakai (Division of Digestive and General Surgery, Niigata University Graduate School of Medical and Dental Sciences).

The Japanese Society of Gastroenterology: President: Satoshi Mochida (Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Faculty of Medicine, Saitama Medical University). Past President: Kazuhiko Koike (Kanto Central Hospital). Director Responsible: Yoshifumi Takeyama (Department of Surgery, Kindai University Faculty of Medicine), Takao Itoi (Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Tokyo Medical University).

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Reprints and permissions

Fujita, N., Yasuda, I., Endo, I. et al. Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for cholelithiasis 2021. J Gastroenterol 58, 801–833 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00535-023-02014-6

Download citation

• Received: 26 April 2023

• Accepted: 21 June 2023

• Published: 15 July 2023

• Issue Date: September 2023

• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00535-023-02014-6

RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue

Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo

HTML: 3.2 | Encoding: UTF-8 | Version: 0.7.4