Suppr超能文献

评估内镜下最小限度括约肌切开术联合乳头球囊扩张术治疗胆总管结石的安全性和有效性。

Evaluation of the safety and efficacy of minimal endoscopic sphincterotomy followed by papillary balloon dilation for the removal of common bile duct stones.

作者信息

Ishii Shigeto, Fujisawa Toshio, Ushio Mako, Takahashi Sho, Yamagata Wataru, Takasaki Yusuke, Suzuki Akinori, Okawa Yoshihiro, Ochiai Kazushige, Tomishima Ko, Kanazawa Ryo, Saito Hiroaki, Shiina Shuichiro, Isayama Hiroyuki

机构信息

Department of Gastroenterology, Juntendo University Graduate School of Medicine, Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, Japan.

出版信息

Saudi J Gastroenterol. 2020 Jul 21;26(6):344-50. doi: 10.4103/sjg.SJG_162_20.

Abstract

BACKGROUND/AIM: A sufficiently open papilla is needed to remove common bile duct stones (CBDS) but endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) requires a high level of skill and is difficult with endoscopic papillary balloon dilation (EPBD). The main adverse event of EST is bleeding and perforation and that of EPBD is post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis. To reduce these adverse events we employed minimal EST followed by papillary dilation (ESBD), and retrospectively evaluated its efficacy and safety compared with EST.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

CBDS patients who underwent EST (n = 114) or ESBD (n = 321) at Juntendo University Hospital from January 2009 to December 2018 were consecutively enrolled, retrospectively. The exclusion criteria were large-balloon dilation (≥ 12 mm), large CBDS (>12 mm), and previous EST/EPBD. We compared the overall stone removal rate, incidence of adverse event, procedure time, number of ERCP procedures, and rate of mechanical lithotripsy (ML) between the two groups.

RESULTS

Complete stone removal was successful in both ESBD and EST group. However, the rate of multiple ERCP sessions was significantly lower (35.1% vs. 12.8%, P < 0.001), procedure time was shorter (31.6 vs. 25.8 min, P = 0.01), and rate of ML was lower (16.7% vs. 7.8%, P = 0.01) in ESBD group. Bleeding was significantly more frequent in the EST group (9.6% vs. 1.2%, P < 0.001), particularly acute bleeding (7.9% vs. 0.9%, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

ESBD is more efficient and safer in the management of CBD stones than EST. A prospective randomized study comparing ESBD with EST is needed to establish this combination technique.

摘要

背景/目的:清除胆总管结石(CBDS)需要足够开放的乳头,但内镜括约肌切开术(EST)需要较高的技术水平,且在内镜乳头球囊扩张术(EPBD)中操作困难。EST的主要不良事件是出血和穿孔,而EPBD的主要不良事件是内镜逆行胰胆管造影(ERCP)术后胰腺炎。为减少这些不良事件,我们采用了最小化EST联合乳头扩张术(ESBD),并与EST相比,回顾性评估了其疗效和安全性。

患者与方法

回顾性连续纳入2009年1月至2018年12月在顺天堂大学医院接受EST(n = 114)或ESBD(n = 321)的CBDS患者。排除标准为大球囊扩张(≥12 mm)、大的CBDS(>12 mm)和既往EST/EPBD。我们比较了两组的总体结石清除率、不良事件发生率、手术时间、ERCP手术次数和机械碎石术(ML)率。

结果

ESBD组和EST组均成功实现了完全结石清除。然而,ESBD组多次ERCP手术的发生率显著更低(35.1%对12.8%,P < 0.001),手术时间更短(31.6对25.8分钟,P = 0.01),ML率更低(16.7%对7.8%,P = 0.01)。EST组出血明显更频繁(9.6%对1.2%,P < 0.001),尤其是急性出血(7.9%对0.9%,P < 0.001)。

结论

在胆总管结石的治疗中,ESBD比EST更有效、更安全。需要进行一项比较ESBD与EST的前瞻性随机研究来确立这种联合技术。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/1b98/8019135/26ac154f197c/SJG-26-344-g001.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验