Introduction

Methods to clear CBDS carry varying risk of adverse effects while leaving them in situ can lead to complications secondary to retained stones.^1–3 Thus, the modality of choice reasonably affects the assessment of whether an attempted removal of asymptomatic CBDS is feasible and adequate. In Sweden, available methods to clear common bile duct stones identified on intraoperative cholangiography during cholecystectomy are flushing/manipulating with cholangio catheter, trans cystic stone extraction, intra-operative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (IOERCP), postoperative ERCP, laparoscopic choledochotomy, open choledochotomy and leaving the stone in situ.

Aims & Methods

This observational cohort study was based on the national Swedish Register for Gallstone Surgery and ERCP (GallRiks) with validated prospectively assembled data for 90% of all cholecystectomies and ERCP procedures in Sweden from 2009 to 2023.⁴ The aim was to assess efficacy and safety of the respective methods of clearing CBDS by estimating their odds ratio (OR) of failing to reach textbook outcome. Leaving CBDS in situ was considered reference method.
Textbook outcome was defined as cholecystectomy and CBDS clearance laparoscopically completed in one session without immediate or 30-day surgical complications (bleeding from wound or GI tract, wound dehiscence, wound infection, sepsis, bile duct injury with or without leakage or bleeding), readmissions, reinterventions, stent placement or prolonged postoperative hospitalization beyond three days.
The size of CBDS was categorized as small (<4mm) intermediate (4-8 mm) and large (>8mm). Patients were considered asymptomatic if no previous or current sign of bilirubinemia, cholangitis or pancreatits was recorded.

Results

Among the 192 203 patients in the register between 2009 and 2023, 25 295 patients presented with a CBDS during cholecystectomy. Failure to achieve textbook outcome was seen for 12 147 (48%) across all stone sizes and management options. Odds ratio of failing textbook outcome when adjusting only for CBDS size was 0.7 (95%CI 0.63-0.77) for intraoperative ERCP and 0.63 (95% CI 0.55-0.71) for transcystic extraction while flushing and manipulating the stone had OR 0.5 (95% CI 0.44-0.57). Laparoscopic choledochotomy had OR 14.36 (95% CI 8.83- 25.09) to fail textbook outcome. All compared to leaving the stone in situ.
For a subgroup of asymptomatic stones smaller than 4mm the flushing manipulating option was the only one beneficial compared to leaving them in situ with unadjusted OR 0.73(95% CI 0.59-0.90) of failing textbook outcome.

Conclusion

This study introduces a novel composite outcome measure—textbook outcome—to define successful, complication-free clearance of common bile duct stones (CBDS) encountered during cholecystectomy. Using this measure, the greatest benefit was seen in the flush/manipulate group, which was also the only approach that provided a clear advantage for small asymptomatic stones compared to leaving them in situ.
Balancing safety and efficacy of CBDS clearance methods remains essential, given the potential for complications associated with interventions in the common bile duct.
Importantly, small asymptomatic stones did not seem to benefit from more invasive removal techniques beyond flushing and manipulation with the cholangiocatheter,
when evaluated using this composite outcome measure. However, these results need to be interpreted with caution due to the risk of selection bias.

References

1 Lammert F, Gurusamy K, Ko CW, Miquel J-F, Méndez-Sánchez N, Portincasa P, et al. Gallstones. Nat Rev Dis Primers [Internet]. Nature Publishing Group; 2016 Apr 28 [cited 2023 Nov 6]; 2: 1–17. Available from: https://www.nature.com/articles/nrdp201624
2 Saito H, Kadono Y, Shono T, Kamikawa K, Urata A, Nasu J, et al. Remaining issues of recommended management in current guidelines for asymptomatic common bile duct stones. World J Gastroenterol [Internet]. 2021 May 14 [cited 2023 Oct 24]; 27: 2131–2140. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8117734/
3 Berg LS, Friis-Andersen H, Zinther NB, Öztoprak M, Gotschalck KA. Feasibility and outcome of transcystic laparoscopic common bile duct exploration as first-line treatment for common bile duct stones: a retrospective cross-sectional study. Surg Endosc [Internet]. 2025 Feb 11 [cited 2025 Feb 17]; 1–11. Available from: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00464-025-11587-7
4 Enochsson, L. S G. GallRiks Annual Reports 2018 [Internet]. 2019 [cited 2019 Oct 3]. Available from: https://www.ucr.uu.se/gallriks/fou/arsrapporter/arsrapport-2018-2/viewdocument/837

Introduction

The global burden of Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), encompassing ulcerative colitis (UC) and Crohn’s disease (CD), is increasing. Due to its chronic nature, IBD entails long-term healthcare resource use, contributing to substantial economic and environmental costs. Digestive endoscopy, while a cornerstone of disease monitoring, is associated with high energy consumption, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and medical waste. Intestinal ultrasound (IUS) has emerged as a non-invasive, accurate, and potentially more sustainable alternative.

Aims & Methods

The present study aimed to compare the environmental impacts in terms of CO₂ emissions, energy consumption (kWh), and disposable waste of IUS and endoscopy for therapeutic monitoring in IBD. In this single-center, retrospective observational study conducted at IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital (Rozzano, Milan), all consecutive IUS and lower gastrointestinal endoscopies performed for therapeutic monitoring in IBD patients between January 2022 and December 2025 were included. Procedures for oncologic surveillance in long-standing disease, isolated rectal involvement (<15 cm from the anal verge), or without confirmed IBD were excluded. Clinical and procedural data were collected. Environmental metrics such as CO₂ emissions, energy consumption (kWh), and disposable waste were estimated using validated conversion factors and compared using appropriate statistical tests (Independent-samples t-test or Mann–Whitney U test).

Results

Endoscopic procedures performed during study period (n=2698) ↓ Exclusion criteria - Endoscopic procedures in trial setting (n=1157) -Endoscopic surveillance in UC (n= 216) -Pouchoscopies & ulcerative proctitis monitoring (n=162) - Operative/ emergency procedures (n=71) ↓ Endoscopic procedures included in the analysis (n=1092) Colonoscopies (n= 710)↵ ↳ Sigmoidoscopies (n=382)

intestinal ultrasounds performed during study period (n=1541) ↓ Exclusion criteria - Indications other than disease monitoring/ patient BMI> 30 Kg/m2 (n= 231) ↓ Intestinal ultrasounds included in the analysis (n=1310) ​

Flowchart 1. Visual representation of the process of selecting procedures to be included in the final analysis. UC: Ulcerative colitis; BMI: Body Mass Index.

During the study period, a total of 1092 endoscopic procedures, comprising 710 colonoscopies and 382 sigmoidoscopies, along with 1310 IUS were performed in 1028 IBD patients (58% UC, 42% CD). Estimated resource use for all endoscopic procedures totaled 1,256 kWh of electricity, 72,080 L of CO₂ emissions, and 585.6 kg of disposable waste, based on procedural averages (~1.5 kWh, 80 L of CO₂, 650 g waste per colonoscopy; ~50% of values for sigmoidoscopies). In contrast, IUS was associated with an estimated 524 kWh of electricity and 196.5 kg of disposable waste (average ~0.4 kWh, almost no CO₂ consumption, 150 g waste per exam). Compared to endoscopy, IUS reduced energy use by 82%, CO₂ emissions by 95%, and waste generation by 66% (P < 0.05 for all comparisons).

Conclusion

While gastrointestinal endoscopy remains indispensable in certain clinical scenarios, its environmental impact is considerable. In contrast, IUS emits almost no equivalent of CO₂, consumes significantly less energy per examination and produces negligible wastes. For therapeutic monitoring in IBD, IUS has demonstrated high diagnostic accuracy with a markedly lower ecological footprint. These findings promote IUS as a sustainable and environmentally friendly alternative for routine IBD monitoring in appropriate scenarios.

Disclosure

A Armuzzi has received consulting and/or advisory board fees from AbbVie, Allergan, Amgen, Arena, Biogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celltrion, Eli-Lilly, Ferring, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, MSD, Mylan, Pfizer, Protagonist Therapeutics, Roche, Samsung Bioepis, Sandoz, Takeda, lecture and/or speaker bureau fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Arena, Biogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celltrion, Eli-Lilly, Ferring, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, MSD, Mitsubishi Tanabe, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz, Takeda, Tigenix, and research grants from MSD, Pfizer, Takeda and Biogen. A Repici received consulting fee from Medtronic, Fuji and Olympus and has received research grant from Alfa Sigma, Norgine, Boston and Erbe. C Bezzio received speaker’s fees and consulting fees from for Takeda, MSD, Ferring, Abbvie, Galapagos and Janssen. A Dal Buono has received speaker’s fees from Pfizer, MSD, Eli-Lilly, Celltrion, Janssen, and consulting fees from Ferring. R Gabbiadini has received speaker’s fees from Pfizer, MSD, Ferring, Eli-Lilly, Celltrion, Janssen, consulting fees from Pfizer and Abbvie. G. Privitera has received speaker’s fees from Janssen and Alphasigma. B. Masoni and G. Franchellucci declare no conflict of interests.