Hormati Ahmad, Ghadir Mohammad Reza, Hasanpour Dehkordi Ali, Yadollahi Farshad, Salehitali Shahriar, Afifian Mahboobeh
Assistant Professor, Gastroenterology and Hepatology Disease Research Center, Qom University of Medical Sciences, Shahid Beheshti Hospital, Qom, Iran.
Assistant Professor, Gastrointestinal and Liver Disease Research Center, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Firoozgar Hospital, Tehran, Iran.
Middle East J Dig Dis. 2019 Oct;11(4):205-210. doi: 10.15171/mejdd.2019.150. Epub 2019 Nov 5.
BACKGROUND Although stenting for the treatment of large and multiple common bile duct stones has been acceptable to everyone, its efficacy and outcome have not been studied in comparison with other endoscopic procedures. The purpose of this study was to compare the consequences of stenting and endoscopic papilla balloon dilatation for the treatment of large and multiple common bile duct stones. METHODS In a double-blind clinical trial, of 431 patients with bile duct stones referred to the treatment center, 64 patients with multiple common bile duct stones ( ≥ 3) and more than 15 cm were selected for the study, then by random allocation rule the participants were allocated in two groups. They were entered into two different endoscopic papillary balloon dilatation (EPBD) and common bile ducts stenting treatments so that both procedures were performed by a person. Both groups were assessed from the point of views therapeutic outcomes such as duct cleaning, pancreatitis, isolated pain, and duct rupture. Data were collected by a self-made questionnaire that was used before and after the procedure to obtain the needed information. Then data were analyzed using SPSS software version 22 and descriptive and analytical tests were used as appropriated. RESULTS Although the duct cleaning and the complete removal of the stones in the stenting treatment procedure was 93.8%, and in EPBD was 78.3%, no significant difference was observed between the two groups ( = 0.14). Pancreatitis significantly increased after the first and second endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in the stent group compared with EPBD ( = 0.02). Also, the most frequent cases of isolated pain were in the endoscopic group EPBD ( = 0.0). However, the occurrence of perforation after first ERCP and EPBD was zero, but in the second stage of ERCP, 3.3% of the patients had perforations ( = 0.99). The results indicated that the shape of the stone (circular and angled) was not effective in the result of treatment in the two groups. CONCLUSION The results of this study indicated that in case of experience and skill in conducting the ERCP, common bile duct stenting is still the first line of treatment for large and multiple stones of the common bile ducts.
背景 尽管胆管支架置入术用于治疗较大及多发胆总管结石已被广泛接受,但其疗效和结果尚未与其他内镜手术进行比较研究。本研究的目的是比较胆管支架置入术和内镜乳头球囊扩张术治疗较大及多发胆总管结石的效果。方法 在一项双盲临床试验中,在转诊至治疗中心的431例胆管结石患者中,选择64例多发胆总管结石(≥3枚)且结石长度超过15 cm的患者进行研究,然后根据随机分配规则将参与者分为两组。他们分别接受两种不同的内镜乳头球囊扩张术(EPBD)和胆总管支架置入术治疗,且两种手术均由同一人操作。从胆管清理、胰腺炎、孤立性疼痛和胆管破裂等治疗结果的角度对两组进行评估。通过自制问卷收集数据,该问卷在手术前后使用以获取所需信息。然后使用SPSS 22版软件进行数据分析,并根据情况使用描述性和分析性检验。结果 尽管支架置入术治疗过程中胆管清理及结石完全清除率为93.8%,EPBD为78.3%,但两组之间未观察到显著差异(P = 0.14)。与EPBD组相比,支架组在首次和第二次内镜逆行胰胆管造影(ERCP)后胰腺炎显著增加(P = 0.02)。此外,孤立性疼痛最常见于内镜EPBD组(P = 0.0)。然而,首次ERCP和EPBD后穿孔发生率为零,但在ERCP第二阶段,3.3%的患者发生穿孔(P = 0.99)。结果表明结石形状(圆形和有角度的)对两组治疗结果无影响。结论 本研究结果表明,在具备ERCP操作经验和技能的情况下,胆总管支架置入术仍是治疗较大及多发胆总管结石的首选治疗方法。