Choledocholithiasis
Updates to Article Attributes
Choledocholithiasis denotes the presence of gallstones within the bile ducts (common hepatic duct / common bile duct).
Epidemiology
Choledocholithiasis is relatively common, seen in in 6-12% of patients who undergo cholecystectomy 2.
Clinical presentation
Stones within the bile duct are often asymptomatic and may be found incidentally, however, more frequently they lead to symptomatic presentation with:
Pathology
Stones within the bile duct may form either in situ or pass from the gallbladder, and when recurrent tend to be pigment stones, and are thought to be associated with bacterial infection 1.
Radiographic features
Ultrasound
Although ultrasound is usually the first investigation for biliary disease, it has average sensitivity for the detection of biliary stones within the bile duct. Sensitivity has been variably reported between 13-55% 2, with newer studies having higher values due to improved equipment.
Ultrasound should be performed both longitudinally and transversely through the duct with particular attention paid to the very distal portion of the common bile duct as it passes through the pancreatic head (best assessed transversely).
Findings include:
- visualisation of stone(s)
- echogenic rounded focus
- size ranges between 2 to >20 mm
- shadowing may be more difficult to elicit than with gallstones within the
gall bladdergallbladder - ~20% of common bile duct stones will not shadow
- twinkle artefact may be useful to detect occult stones
- dilated bile duct
- >6 mm + 1 mm per decade above 60 years of age
- >10 mm post-cholecystectomy
- dilated intrahepatic biliary tree
- gallstones should increase suspicion, especially if multiple and small
Recently endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) has also been used with very high sensitivity and specificity.
CT
Conventional CT
Routine contrast enhanced-enhanced CT is moderately sensitive to choledocholithiasis with a sensitivity of 65-88% 3, but requires attention to a number of potentially subtle findings. These include:
-
target sign
- central rounded density: stone
- surrounding lower attenuating bile or mucosa
- rim sign: stone is outlined by thin shell of density
- crescent sign: bile eccentrically outlines luminal stone, creating a low attenuation crescent
- calcification of the stone: unfortunately only 20% of stones are of high density
Setting window level to the mean of the bile duct and setting the window width to 150 HU has been reported to improve sensitivity.
Biliary dilatation should also be visible.
CT cholangiography
CT with prior administration of biliary excreted contrast agents is highly sensitive (93(88-96%) and specific (100(88-98%) 48 for choledocholithiasis. The difficulty is, however, two fold-fold:
- contrast agents have relatively high complication rates
- obstructive cholestasis diminishes excretion, and thus is only viable in patients with largely normal liver function tests
.
MRCP
Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) has largely replaced ERCP as the gold standard for diagnosis of choledocholithiasis, able to achieve similar sensitivity (90-94%) and specificity (approaching 100(95-99%)7,8 without ionising radiation, intravenous contrast, or the complication rate inherent in ERCP.
Filling defects are seen within the biliary tree on thin cross-sectional T2 weighted imaging. Care should be taken not to use thick slabs for the diagnosis as volume averaging may obscure smaller stones.
However, if the diagnosis has already been secured by ultrasound or CT, there is no additional value of MRCP, and the next step is therapeutic ERCP (see below).
Percutaneous or oral cholangiography
Both investigations are no longer used for routine diagnosis having been replaced by ultrasound, CT and MRCP.
Treatment and prognosis
Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) with sphincterotomy is the treatment of choice for choledocholithiasis, however, is associated with a complication rate of 5.8-24% (10 years follow-up) 1.
Complications of ERCP and sphincterotomy include:
Differential diagnosis
There is usually little differential, and differential will depend on the modality. The most frequent entities to consider include:
- malignancies
- cholangiocarcinoma
-
ampulla of Vater carcinoma
- arises: arises from a distal position, at the pancreaticobiliary junction, and has low attenuation. - pancreatic adenocarcinoma
- other filling defects
- air bubbles
- parasites
- mimics
- partial volume averaging of bowel gas
- vascular calcification
- surgical clips
- MRCP specific potential pitfalls 6
- susceptibility artefacts
- flow voids
- vascular impressions
- sphincteric contraction or pseudocalculus sign
-<li>shadowing may be more difficult to elicit than with gallstones within the gall bladder</li>- +<li>shadowing may be more difficult to elicit than with gallstones within the gallbladder</li>
-</ul><p>Recently endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) has also been used with very high sensitivity and specificity.</p><h5>CT</h5><h6>Conventional CT</h6><p>Routine contrast enhanced CT is moderately sensitive to choledocholithiasis with sensitivity of 65-88% <sup>3</sup>, but requires attention to a number of potentially subtle findings. These include:</p><ul>- +</ul><p>Recently endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) has also been used with very high sensitivity and specificity.</p><h5>CT</h5><p>Routine contrast-enhanced CT is moderately sensitive to choledocholithiasis with a sensitivity of 65-88% <sup>3</sup>, but requires attention to a number of potentially subtle findings. These include:</p><ul>
-</ul><p>Setting window level to the mean of the bile duct and setting the window width to 150 HU has been reported to improve sensitivity.</p><p>Biliary dilatation should also be visible.</p><h6>CT cholangiography</h6><p>CT with prior administration of biliary excreted contrast agents is highly sensitive (93%) and specific (100%) <sup>4</sup> for choledocholithiasis. The difficulty is, however, two fold:</p><ol>- +</ul><p>Setting window level to the mean of the bile duct and setting the window width to 150 HU has been reported to improve sensitivity.</p><p>Biliary dilatation should also be visible.</p><h6>CT cholangiography</h6><p>CT with prior administration of biliary excreted contrast agents is highly sensitive (88-96%) and specific (88-98%) <sup>8</sup> for choledocholithiasis. The difficulty is, however, two-fold:</p><ol>
-<li>obstructive cholestasis diminishes excretion, and thus is only viable in patients with largely normal liver function tests.</li>-</ol><h5>MRCP</h5><p>Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) has largely replaced ERCP as the gold standard for diagnosis of choledocholithiasis, able to achieve similar sensitivity and specificity (approaching 100%) without ionising radiation, intravenous contrast, or the complication rate inherent in ERCP.</p><p>Filling defects are seen within the biliary tree on thin cross-sectional T2 weighted imaging. Care should be taken not to use thick slabs for the diagnosis as volume averaging may obscure smaller stones.</p><p>However, if the diagnosis has already been secured by ultrasound or CT, there is no additional value of MRCP, and the next step is therapeutic ERCP (see below).</p><h5>Percutaneous or oral cholangiography</h5><p>Both investigations are no longer used for routine diagnosis having been replaced by ultrasound, CT and MRCP.</p><h4>Treatment and prognosis</h4><p>Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) with sphincterotomy is the treatment of choice for choledocholithiasis, however, is associated with a complication rate of 5.8-24% (10 years follow-up) <sup>1</sup>.</p><p>Complications of ERCP and sphincterotomy include:</p><ul><li><a href="/articles/acute-pancreatitis">acute pancreatitis</a></li></ul><h4>Differential diagnosis</h4><p>There is usually little differential, and differential will depend on the modality. The most frequent entities to consider include:</p><ul>- +<li>obstructive cholestasis diminishes excretion, and thus is only viable in patients with largely normal liver function tests</li>
- +</ol><h5>MRCP</h5><p>Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) has largely replaced ERCP as the gold standard for diagnosis of choledocholithiasis, able to achieve similar sensitivity (90-94%) and specificity (95-99%) <sup>7,8</sup> without ionising radiation, intravenous contrast, or the complication rate inherent in <a href="/articles/endoscopic-retrograde-cholangiopancreatography">ERCP</a>.</p><p>Filling defects are seen within the biliary tree on thin cross-sectional T2 weighted imaging. Care should be taken not to use thick slabs for the diagnosis as volume averaging may obscure smaller stones.</p><p>However, if the diagnosis has already been secured by ultrasound or CT, there is no additional value of MRCP, and the next step is therapeutic ERCP (see below).</p><h5>Percutaneous or oral cholangiography</h5><p>Both investigations are no longer used for routine diagnosis having been replaced by ultrasound, CT and MRCP.</p><h4>Treatment and prognosis</h4><p>Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) with sphincterotomy is the treatment of choice for choledocholithiasis, however, is associated with a complication rate of 5.8-24% (10 years follow-up) <sup>1</sup>.</p><p>Complications of ERCP and sphincterotomy include:</p><ul><li><a href="/articles/acute-pancreatitis">acute pancreatitis</a></li></ul><h4>Differential diagnosis</h4><p>There is usually little differential, and differential will depend on the modality. The most frequent entities to consider include:</p><ul>
-<a href="/articles/ampulla-of-vater-carcinoma">ampulla of Vater carcinoma</a> - arises from a distal position, at the pancreaticobiliary junction, and has low attenuation. </li>- +<a href="/articles/ampulla-of-vater-carcinoma">ampulla of Vater carcinoma</a>: arises from a distal position, at the pancreaticobiliary junction, and has low attenuation</li>
References changed:
- 7. Chen W, Mo J, Lin L, Li C, Zhang J. Diagnostic Value of Magnetic Resonance Cholangiopancreatography in Choledocholithiasis. World J Gastroenterol. 2015;21(11):3351-60. <a href="https://doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v21.i11.3351">doi:10.3748/wjg.v21.i11.3351</a> - <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25805944">Pubmed</a>
- 8. Michael Maher, Adrian K. Dixon. Grainger & Allison's Diagnostic Radiology: Abdominal Imaging. (2015) ISBN: 9780702069383 - <a href="http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN9780702069383">Google Books</a>
Unable to process the form. Check for errors and try again.