首页> 外文期刊>Endoscopy International Open >Needle-knife fistulotomy vs. standard biliary sphincterotomy for choledocholithiasis: common bile duct stone recurrence and complication rate
【24h】

Needle-knife fistulotomy vs. standard biliary sphincterotomy for choledocholithiasis: common bile duct stone recurrence and complication rate

机译:针刀瘘与标准胆道括约肌术治疗胆管胆管性:胆总管石头复发和并发症率

获取原文
           

摘要

Background and study aims?With common bile duct (CBD) stones, access to the CBD can be achieved through the papilla orifice followed by standard biliary sphincterotomy (SBS), or through precut fistulotomy (PF) in case of difficult cannulation. The two methods alter papilla anatomy differently, potentially leading to a different rate of stone recurrence. No data have been published on stone recurrence after PF in patients with CBD stones. The aim of this study was to evaluate CBD stone recurrence, reintervention rate after PF versus SBS, and complications. Patients and methods?This was a retrospective single-center cohort study including patients undergoing for the first time endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) for CBD stones with PF in case of failed repeated cannulation attempts, matched for sex/age to patients with SBS randomly extracted from our database. T-test and Fisher’s tests were used for continuous and categorical variable comparison. Recurrence probability was calculated with Kaplan–Meier curve. Factors associated with ERCP repetition were evaluated with logistic regression through a Cox’s proportional hazards model. Results?Eighty-five patients with PF were included, with 85 matched controls (mean age 68.7 years, 45.9?% males). Overall, patients with PF had the same reintervention rate as those with SBS (14.1?% vs. 12.9?%) with a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.11 (95?% CI 0.49?–?2.50; P?=?0.81), but mean time to reintervention was significantly lower (74.9?±?74.6 vs. 765.6?±?961.3 days; P?P?=?0.01). The only factor associated with ERCP repetition risk was incomplete CBD clearing. Complications, including pancreatitis, did not differ significantly. Conclusions?The reintervention rate was significantly higher in the short term after PF. Therefore, closer follow-up in the first 6 to 12 months after ERCP might be appropriate for patients underoing PF.
机译:背景和研究旨在?通过普通胆管(CBD)石,可以通过乳头孔来实现对CBD的进入,然后通过标准胆汁晶体切开术(SBS),或者通过先进的瘘管(PF)在难以挤压的情况下。两种方法不同的乳头解剖学不同,可能导致不同的石头复发率。在CBD石头患者的PF后没有公布任何数据。本研究的目的是评估PF与SBS后的CBD石头复发,重新营养率和并发症。患者和方法?这是一个回顾性单中心队列研究,包括在发生重复的插管尝试失败的情况下,对于具有PF的CBD结石的第一次内窥镜逆行胆管偶联胆管素(ERCP)的患者,用于随机提取的SBS患者的性/年龄匹配来自我们的数据库。 T检验和Fisher的测试用于连续和分类变量比较。用Kaplan-Meier曲线计算复发概率。通过COX的比例危险模型评估与ERCP重复相关的因素。结果?含有85例PF患者,85例匹配对照(平均年龄为68.7岁,45.9?%男性)。总体而言,PF患者具有与危害比(HR)的SBS(14.1〜12.9〜12.9〜12.9〜9.9倍)的重新实施率与1.11(95〜%CI 0.49? - ?2.50; P?= 0.81)但是,转义的平均时间较低(74.9?±74.6与765.6?±961.3天; p?p?= 0.01)。与ERCP重复风险相关的唯一因素是CBD清算不完整。包括胰腺炎,包括胰腺炎,没有显着差异。结论?PF后短期内重新入住率明显高。因此,ERCP在ERCP可能适用于PF患者后,在前6至12个月内更接近。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号