The Puzzle and Challenge in Treating Hepatolithiasis.
Wen‐Jie Ma,Yong Zhou,Qin Yang,Fuyu Li,Anuj Shrestha,Hui Mao
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/sle.0000000000000109
2015-01-01
Abstract:To the Editor: Hepatolithiasis is rare in western countries, but common in Asia-Pacific region, where it is detected in 31% to 50% of patients undergoing surgery for cholelithiasis.1,2 Because of its recalcitrant nature, hepatolithiasis is still considered as an intractable problem in hepatobiliary surgery. Because of the recent use of choledochoscopy, the stone clearance rate has increased. But, even after successful choledochoscopic cholelithotomy, the stones recurrence rate could be as high as 40% as most of the stones accompanied with biliary stricture. If this patient group is only treated by endoscopic cholelithotomy, the recurrence of intrahepatic stones is almost inevitable according to the Asia’s experience.3,4 The management of intrahepatic bile duct stricture is definitely not easy. Even after successful balloon dilatation, the incidence of biliary restenosis still remains as high as 24% to 58%.3,4 Traditional hepatectomy seems to be the best treatment for intrahepatic bile duct stone with intractable bile duct stricture. The use of conventional hepatectomy for treating those stones and biliary strictures localized in 1 segment or in 1 lobe, can achieve a good result in 91.16% of the patients.4 Hepatectomy, however, cannot eliminate the possibility of stone recurrence, and, 16% of the patients undergoing hepatectomy can have a new stone at any other site in the liver. In addition, 40% of hepatolithiasis patients have a whole liver distribution of their stones, and many patients cannot tolerate multiple lobes/ segments resection.3,4 Because of these reasons, application of open hepatectomy is greatly restricted. Patients requiring multiple biliary surgeries for stone recurrences and biliary strictures are commonly encountered in East Asia. Reoperative rates in hepatolithaisis can be as high as 37.1% to 74.4% in 4to 10-year follow-up period.3 The degree of biliary stricture increases as per the increasing frequency of stone recurrences, which directly impacts the overall health condition of patients; thus, leading to an even higher reoperative risk. Currently, long-term effectiveness of available therapeutic methods of hepatolithiasis is far from satisfactory. To date, there are no medications or treatments to prevent stone recurrence or biliary restenosis after choledochoscopic lithotomy. Therefore, new treatment modalities to prevent stone recurrence and biliary restenosis after initial choledochoscopic lithotomy, and to further improve the long-term therapeutic effectiveness in hepatolithiasis is urgently required. Multiple factors for the lithogenesis of pigment stones have brought enormous difficulties to its prevention and treatment. Despite many theories concerning the lithogenesis, it has become more and more evident that 75% to 100% of hepatolithiasis cases in Asia are pathologically characterized by chronic proliferative cholangitis.3–5 In recent years, with a deeper understanding of pathologic changes in hepatolithiasis, more and more attention has been paid to the relationship of chronic proliferative cholangitis with stone recurrence and biliary restenosis. The residual chronic proliferative cholangitis is currently considered as the pathologic basis and major cause for the high recurrence rate of intrahepatic calculi and biliary restenosis. Between intrahepatic calculi and chronic proliferative cholangitis, there exists a vicious cycle, which has been considered as an important reason for the poor prognosis of hepatolithiasis patient. Both the stone itself and its secondary biliary infection can stimulate persistent hyperplasia in the biliary tract wall, leading to the occurrence of chronic proliferative cholangitis and biliary stricture; in contrast, the recurrent attacks of chronic proliferative cholangitis will, in turn, facilitate new stone formation via mucoglycoprotein production or induced biliary stricture and biliary infection.3,4 Thus, even when the stone is completely removed and the biliary tract stenosis is corrected, residual chronic proliferative cholangitis will continue to persist and progress with an underlying threat of postoperative stone recurrence and biliary tract restenosis. In the past, improvement of surgical skills concerning the treatment of hepatolithiasis received great attention while the connection between postoperative residual chronic proliferative cholangitis and stone recurrence went unrecognized. The longterm therapeutic effectiveness on hepatolithiasis is too difficult to be further enhanced by surgery alone. Therefore, the treatment of hepatolithiasis should be directed not only on the clearance of the stone and the correction of biliary stricture, but also on the control of chronic proliferative cholangitis, because chronic proliferative cholangitis is a key linkage in this vicious cycle. Unfortunately, an exact and effective chronic proliferative cholangitis therapy is still yet to be formulated. On the basis of the connection between biliary stricture and chronic proliferative cholangitis, the chemical biliary duct embolization was used to eradicate chronic proliferative cholangitis and thereby prevent the recurrence of intrahepatic calculi. Although chemical biliary duct embolization could effectively eradicate chronic proliferative cholangitis and thereby prevent stone recurrence, the price for the chemical biliary duct embolization was the complete damage to the subsidiary hepatic segment and related bile duct, so this kind of chemical biliary duct embolization technique was restricted to some extent in clinical practice.4 Chemical biliary duct embolization only provides an additional and potential approach for handling hepatolithiasis patients who are not suitable for surgical intervention. And further investigation is still needed to confirm long-term effectiveness of this procedure via multicenter study. On the basis of the hyperplastic behavior of chronic proliferative cholangitis, the antiproliferative treatment seems to be another potential approach for intrahepatic stone. There are some reports in treating chronic proliferative cholangitis with paclitaxel or specific blockage of the proliferation-related gene expression such as E2F decoy, C-myc, or proliferating cell nuclear antigen using antisense gene therapy.3 This antiproliferation treatment could Supported by the National Nature Science Foundation of China (30801111, 30972923) and Science & Technology Support Project of Sichuan Province (No. 14ZC1337, 14ZC1335 and 2014SZ000210). The authors declare no conflicts of interest. LETTER TO THE EDITOR