4.1 Article

Initial experience of direct-to-test endoscopic ultrasonography for suspected choledocholithiasis

Journal

SCOTTISH MEDICAL JOURNAL
Volume 60, Issue 2, Pages 85-89

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/0036933015572276

Keywords

Endosonography; referral and consultation; gallbladder diseases; biliary tract

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background and aims: Endoscopic ultrasound has become an invaluable tool in the investigation of patients with suspected pancreatobiliary disease. We set out to determine whether a direct-to-test'' endoscopic ultrasound procedure could be offered to selected patients with suspected choledocholithiasis. Methods and results: We included patients referred to our general gastroenterology service with clinical history, symptomatology and/or laboratory results compatible with choledocholithiais. Almost all patients had already had a transabdominal ultrasound performed at the request of their general practitioner. All patients underwent direct-to-test day-case endoscopic ultrasound under conscious sedation. Procedures were performed by a single practitioner using an oblique-viewing radial echoendoscope. The diagnostic yield and frequencies of discharge, onward referral and follow-up were determined. Overall diagnostic yield of direct-to-test endoscopic ultrasound was 61%. The most common diagnoses were cholelithiasis (18%) and choledocholithiasis (11%); one periampullary cancer was also detected. A definitive outcome (discharge or referral for a therapeutic procedure) occurred in 14 of 28 patients (50%). The remaining 14 patients underwent further out-patient evaluation. Eventual diagnoses in this group included autoimmune hepatitis, primary biliary cirrhosis and drug-induced hepatitis. Conclusions: For patients with suspected biliary disease, direct-to-test endoscopic ultrasound has a high diagnostic yield, and may be an appropriate mode of investigation.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available