Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Hilar Biliary Strictures

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Dilemmas in ERCP

  • 575 Accesses

Abstract

Hilar biliary strictures present a unique challenge to endoscopists because of the difficulty in securing a diagnosis for the stricture and providing adequate therapeutic drainage. Hilar strictures can be secondary to underlying liver disease, such as primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC), or postsurgical complications. However, the majority of hilar strictures are concerning for underlying malignancy such as cholangiocarcinoma. The challenge in diagnosing cholangiocarcinoma lies in part due to its desmoplastic character and tropism for bile such that it extends along the duct rather than grow intraluminally. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) plays a critical role in the diagnosis of hilar strictures through the use of cytology brushings, biopsy forceps, and cholangioscopy and may require several procedures to secure a diagnosis. Therapeutic management of these strictures is also complex since endoscopists have to decide between unilateral versus bilateral biliary drainage, plastic or self-expandable metal stent (SEMS) placement, and, if bilateral SEMS is pursued, the ideal configuration for the SEMS. The goal of this chapter is to help present current data and our own personal approach to the diagnosis and therapeutic management of hilar strictures.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 89.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Singh RR, Singh V. Endoscopic management of hilar biliary strictures. World J Gastrointest Endosc. 2015;7:806–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Saluja SS, Sharma R, Pal S, et al. Differentiation between benign and malignant hilar obstructions using laboratory and radiological investigations: a prospective study. HPB (Oxford). 2007;9:373–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Kim HJ, Lee KT, Kim SH, et al. Differential diagnosis of intrahepatic bile duct dilatation without demonstrable mass on ultrasonography or CT: benign versus malignancy. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2003;18:1287–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Kurzawinski TR, Deery A, Dooley JS, et al. A prospective study of biliary cytology in 100 patients with bile duct strictures. Hepatology. 1993;18:1399–403.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Schöfl R. Diagnostic endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Endoscopy. 2001;33:147–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Trent V, Khurana KK, Pisharodi LR. Diagnostic accuracy and clinical utility of endoscopic bile duct brushing in the evaluation of biliary strictures. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1999;123:712–5.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Lee JG, Leung JW, Baillie J, et al. Benign, dysplastic, or malignant--making sense of endoscopic bile duct brush cytology: results in 149 consecutive patients. Am J Gastroenterol. 1995;90:722–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Logrono R, Kurtycz DF, Molina CP, et al. Analysis of false-negative diagnoses on endoscopic brush cytology of biliary and pancreatic duct strictures: the experience at 2 university hospitals. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2000;124:387–92.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Rumalla A, Baron TH, Leontovich O, et al. Improved diagnostic yield of endoscopic biliary brush cytology by digital image analysis. Mayo Clin Proc. 2001;76:29–33.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Pugliese V, Antonelli G, Vincenti M, et al. Endoductal tissue sampling of biliary strictures through endoscopic retrograde cholangiopan creatography (ERCP). Tumori. 1997;83:698–702.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Schoefl R, Haefner M, Wrba F, et al. Forceps biopsy and brush cytology during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography for the diagnosis of biliary stenoses. Scand J Gastroenterol. 1997;32:363–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Parasher VK, Huibregtse K. Endoscopic retrograde wire-guided cytology of malignant biliary strictures using a novel scraping brush. YMGE. 1998;48:288–90.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Fogel EL, Sherman S. How to improve the accuracy of diagnosis of malignant biliary strictures. Endoscopy. 1999;31:758–60.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Foutch PG. Diagnosis of cancer by cytologic methods performed during ERCP. YMGE. 1994;40:249–52.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Howell DA, Beveridge RP, Bosco J, et al. Endoscopic needle aspiration biopsy at ERCP in the diagnosis of biliary strictures. YMGE. 1992;38:531–5.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Mohandas KM, Swaroop VS, Gullar SU, et al. Diagnosis of malignant obstructive jaundice by bile cytology: results improved by dilating the bile duct strictures. YMGE. 1994;40:150–4.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Ponsioen CY, Vrouenraets SM, van Milligen de Wit AW, et al. Value of brush cytology for dominant strictures in primary sclerosing cholangitis. Endoscopy. 1999;31:305–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Stewart CJ, Burke GM. Value of p53 immunostaining in pancreatico-biliary brush cytology specimens. Diagn Cytopathol. 2000;23:308–13.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Morales CP, Burdick JS, Saboorian MH, et al. In situ hybridization for telomerase RNA in routine cytologic brushings for the diagnosis of pancreaticobiliary malignancies. YMGE. 1998;48:402–5.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Itoi T, Shinohara Y, Takeda K, et al. Detection of telomerase activity in biopsy specimens for diagnosis of biliary tract cancers. YMGE. 2000;52:380–6.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Patel AH, Harnois DM, Klee GG, et al. The utility of CA 19-9 in the diagnoses of cholangiocarcinoma in patients without primary sclerosing cholangitis. Am J Gastroenterol. 2000;95:204–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Saurin JC, Joly-Pharaboz MO, Pernas P, et al. Detection of Ki-ras gene point mutations in bile specimens for the differential diagnosis of malignant and benign biliary strictures. Gut. 2000;47:357–61.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Ryan ME, Baldauf MC. Comparison of flow cytometry for DNA content and brush cytology for detection of malignancy in pancreaticobiliary strictures. YMGE. 1994;40:133–9.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Tamada K, Sugano K. Diagnosis and non-surgical treatment of bile duct carcinoma: developments in the past decade. J Gastroenterol. 2000;35:319–25.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Rumalla A, Petersen BT. Diagnosis and therapy of biliary tract malignancy. Semin Gastrointest Dis. 2000;11:168–73.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Bain VG, Abraham N, Jhangri GS, et al. Prospective study of biliary strictures to determine the predictors of malignancy. Can J Gastroenterol. 2000;14:397–402.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Adamsen S, Olsen M, Jendresen MB, et al. Endobiliary brush biopsy: intra- and interobserver variation in cytological evaluation of brushings from bile duct strictures. Scand J Gastroenterol. 2006;41:597–603.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Glasbrenner B, Ardan M, Boeck W, et al. Prospective evaluation of brush cytology of biliary strictures during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Endoscopy. 1999;31:712–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Yamaguchi T, Shirai Y, Nakamura N, et al. Usefulness of brush cytology combined with pancreatic juice cytology in the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer: significance of pancreatic juice cytology after brushing. Pancreas. 2012;41:1225–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Vandervoort J, Soetikno RM, Montes H, et al. Accuracy and complication rate of brush cytology from bile duct versus pancreatic duct. YMGE. 1999;49:322–7.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Ferrari Júnior AP, Lichtenstein DR, Slivka A, et al. Brush cytology during ERCP for the diagnosis of biliary and pancreatic malignancies. YMGE. 1994;40:140–5.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Weber A, Gaa J, Rosca B, et al. Complications of percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage in patients with dilated and nondilated intrahepatic bile ducts. Eur J Radiol. 2009;72:412–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Weber A, Weyhern v C, Fend F, et al. Endoscopic transpapillary brush cytology and forceps biopsy in patients with hilar cholangiocarcinoma. World J Gastroenterol. 2008;14:1097–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Moreno Luna LE, Kipp B, Halling KC, et al. Advanced cytologic techniques for the detection of malignant pancreatobiliary strictures. YGAST. 2006;131:1064–72.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Levy MJ, Baron TH, Clayton AC, et al. Prospective evaluation of advanced molecular markers and imaging techniques in patients with indeterminate bile duct strictures. Am J Gastroenterol. 2008;103:1263–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Brooks C, Gausman V, Kokoy-Mondragon C, et al. Role of fluorescent in situ hybridization, cholangioscopic biopsies, and EUS-FNA in the evaluation of biliary strictures. Dig Dis Sci. 2018;63:636–44.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Farrell RJ, Jain AK, Brandwein SL, et al. The combination of stricture dilation, endoscopic needle aspiration, and biliary brushings significantly improves diagnostic yield from malignant bile duct strictures. YMGE. 2001;54:587–94.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. de Bellis M, Fogel EL, Sherman S, et al. Influence of stricture dilation and repeat brushing on the cancer detection rate of brush cytology in the evaluation of malignant biliary obstruction. YMGE. 2003;58:176–82.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Ornellas LC, Santos GDC, Nakao FS, et al. Comparison between endoscopic brush cytology performed before and after biliary stricture dilation for cancer detection. Arq Gastroenterol. 2006;43:20–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. de Bellis M, Sherman S, Fogel EL, et al. Tissue sampling at ERCP in suspected malignant biliary strictures (Part 2). YMGE. 2002;56:720–30.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Pugliese V, Conio M, Nicolò G, et al. Endoscopic retrograde forceps biopsy and brush cytology of biliary strictures: a prospective study. YMGE. 1995;42:520–6.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Seo DW, Lee SK, Yoo KS, et al. Cholangioscopic findings in bile duct tumors. YMGE. 2000;52:630–4.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Kim HJ, Kim MH, Lee SK, et al. Tumor vessel: a valuable cholangioscopic clue of malignant biliary stricture. YMGE. 2000;52:635–8.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Shah RJ, Langer DA, Antillon M-R, et al. Cholangioscopy and cholangioscopic forceps biopsy in patients with indeterminate pancreaticobiliary pathology. YJCGH. 2006;4:219–25.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Fukuda Y, Tsuyuguchi T, Sakai Y, et al. Diagnostic utility of peroral cholangioscopy for various bile-duct lesions. YMGE. 2005;62:374–82.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Williamson JB, Draganov PV. The usefulness of SpyGlass™ choledochoscopy in the diagnosis and treatment of biliary disorders. Curr Gastroenterol Rep. 2012;14:534–41.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Siddiqui AA, Mehendiratta V, Jackson W, et al. Identification of cholangiocarcinoma by using the Spyglass Spyscope system for peroral cholangioscopy and biopsy collection. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2012;10:466–71. quiz e48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Sun X, Zhou Z, Tian J, et al. Is single-operator peroral cholangioscopy a useful tool for the diagnosis of indeterminate biliary lesion? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastrointest Endosc. 2015;82:79–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Sethi A, Chen YK, Austin GL, et al. ERCP with cholangiopancreatoscopy may be associated with higher rates of complications than ERCP alone: a single-center experience. Gastrointest Endosc. 2011;73:251–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Chandrasekhara V, Elmunzer BJ, Khashab M, et al. Clinical gastrointestinal endoscopy. Philadelphia: Elsevier; 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Tamada K, Ueno N, Tomiyama T, et al. Characterization of biliary strictures using intraductal ultrasonography: comparison with percutaneous cholangioscopic biopsy. YMGE. 1998;47:341–9.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Farrell RJ, Agarwal B, Brandwein SL, et al. Intraductal US is a useful adjunct to ERCP for distinguishing malignant from benign biliary strictures. YMGE. 2002;56:681–7.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Stavropoulos S, Larghi A, Verna E, et al. Intraductal ultrasound for the evaluation of patients with biliary strictures and no abdominal mass on computed tomography. Endoscopy. 2005;37:715–21.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. Vazquez-Sequeiros E, Baron TH, Clain JE, et al. Evaluation of indeterminate bile duct strictures by intraductal US. YMGE. 2002;56:372–9.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Al-Kawas F, Aslanian H, Baillie J, et al. Percutaneous transhepatic vs. endoscopic retrograde biliary drainage for suspected malignant hilar obstruction: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials. 2018;19:108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Easler JJ, Sherman S, Coté GA. Optimizing palliation of malignant hilar strictures by the use of endobiliary stents. Gastrointest Endosc. 2017;86:828–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Hameed A, Pang T, Chiou J, et al. Percutaneous vs. endoscopic pre-operative biliary drainage in hilar cholangiocarcinoma - a systematic review and meta-analysis. HPB (Oxford). 2016;18:400–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Vienne A, Hobeika E, Gouya H, et al. Prediction of drainage effectiveness during endoscopic stenting of malignant hilar strictures: the role of liver volume assessment. Gastrointest Endosc. 2010;72:728–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Moon JH, Rerknimitr R, Kogure H, et al. Topic controversies in the endoscopic management of malignant hilar strictures using metal stent: side-by-side versus stent-in-stent techniques. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci. 2015;22:650–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Lee TH, Kim TH, Moon JH, et al. Bilateral versus unilateral placement of metal stents for inoperable high-grade malignant hilar biliary strictures: a multicenter, prospective, randomized study (with video). Gastrointest Endosc. 2017;86:817–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Sawas T, Halabi Al S, Parsi MA, et al. Self-expandable metal stents versus plastic stents for malignant biliary obstruction: a meta-analysis. Gastrointest Endosc. 2015;82:256–267.e7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. De Palma GD, Galloro G, Siciliano S, et al. Unilateral versus bilateral endoscopic hepatic duct drainage in patients with malignant hilar biliary obstruction: results of a prospective, randomized, and controlled study. YMGE. 2001;53:547–53.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Deviere J, Baize M, de Toeuf J, et al. Long-term follow-up of patients with hilar malignant stricture treated by endoscopic internal biliary drainage. YMGE. 1988;34:95–101.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  64. Liberato MJA, Canena JMT. Endoscopic stenting for hilar cholangiocarcinoma: efficacy of unilateral and bilateral placement of plastic and metal stents in a retrospective review of 480 patients. BMC Gastroenterol. 2012;12:103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Perdue DG, Freeman ML, DiSario JA, et al. Plastic versus self-expanding metallic stents for malignant hilar biliary obstruction: a prospective multicenter observational cohort study. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2008;42:1040–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Peters RA, Williams SG, Lombard M, et al. The management of high-grade hilar strictures by endoscopic insertion of self-expanding metal endoprostheses. Endoscopy. 1997;29:10–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  67. Wagner HJ, Knyrim K, Vakil N, et al. Plastic endoprostheses versus metal stents in the palliative treatment of malignant hilar biliary obstruction. A prospective and randomized trial. Endoscopy. 1993;25:213–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  68. Sangchan A, Kongkasame W, Pugkhem A, et al. Efficacy of metal and plastic stents in unresectable complex hilar cholangiocarcinoma: a randomized controlled trial. Gastrointest Endosc. 2012;76:93–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Jonas S, Benckert C, Thelen A, et al. Radical surgery for hilar cholangiocarcinoma. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2008;34:263–71.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  70. Celotti A, Solaini L, Montori G, et al. Preoperative biliary drainage in hilar cholangiocarcinoma: systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2017;43:1628–35.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  71. Naitoh I, Hayashi K, Nakazawa T, et al. Side-by-side versus stent-in-stent deployment in bilateral endoscopic metal stenting for malignant hilar biliary obstruction. Dig Dis Sci. 2012;57:3279–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Law R, Baron TH. Bilateral metal stents for hilar biliary obstruction using a 6Fr delivery system: outcomes following bilateral and side-by-side stent deployment. Dig Dis Sci. 2013;58:2667–72.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  73. Paik WH, Park YS, Hwang J-H, et al. Palliative treatment with self-expandable metallic stents in patients with advanced type III or IV hilar cholangiocarcinoma: a percutaneous versus endoscopic approach. Gastrointest Endosc. 2009;69:55–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Kloek JJ, van der Gaag NA, Aziz Y, et al. Endoscopic and percutaneous preoperative biliary drainage in patients with suspected hilar cholangiocarcinoma. J Gastrointest Surg. 2010;14:119–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Wiggers JK, Groot Koerkamp B, Coelen RJ, et al. Preoperative biliary drainage in perihilar cholangiocarcinoma: identifying patients who require percutaneous drainage after failed endoscopic drainage. Endoscopy. 2015;47:1124–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Gastroenterology, University of Texas, Southwestern, Dallas, TX, USA

    Anna Tavakkoli

  2. Division of Gastroenterology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA

    Richard S. Kwon

Authors
  1. Anna Tavakkoli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Richard S. Kwon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Richard S. Kwon .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Gastroenterology, Washington University in St. Louis School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA

    Daniel K. Mullady

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Tavakkoli, A., Kwon, R.S. (2019). Hilar Biliary Strictures. In: Mullady, D. (eds) Dilemmas in ERCP. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-12741-1_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-12741-1_6

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-12740-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-12741-1

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation