Suppr超能文献

胆总管结石合并壶腹周围憩室的特征及内镜逆行胰胆管造影术:兰州和京都两个中心的比较

Choledocholithiasis characteristics with periampullary diverticulum and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography procedures: Comparison between two centers from Lanzhou and Kyoto.

作者信息

Zhu Ke-Xiang, Yue Ping, Wang Hai-Ping, Meng Wen-Bo, Liu Jian-Kang, Zhang Lei, Zhu Xiao-Liang, Zhang Hui, Miao Long, Wang Zheng-Feng, Zhou Wen-Ce, Suzuki Azumi, Tanaka Kiyohito, Li Xun

机构信息

Department of General Surgery, The First Hospital of Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, Gansu Province, China.

Key Laboratory of Biological Therapy and Regenerative Medicine Transformation Gansu Province, The First Hospital of Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, Gansu Province, China.

出版信息

World J Gastrointest Surg. 2022 Feb 27;14(2):132-142. doi: 10.4240/wjgs.v14.i2.132.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Most of study regarding periampullary diverticulum (PAD) impact on endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) therapy for choledocholithiasis based on data from one endoscopy center and lacked to compare the clinical characteristic of choledocholithiasis with PAD from different geographical patients.

AIM

To compare the choledocholithiasis clinical characteristics between two regional endoscopy centers and analyze impacts of clinical characteristics on ERCP methods for choledocholithiasis patients with PAD.

METHODS

Patients seen in two endoscopy centers (The First Hospital of Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, Gansu Province, China, and Kyoto Second Red Cross Hospital, Kyoto, Japan) underwent ERCP treatment for the first time between January 2012 and December 2017. The characteristics of choledocholithiasis with PAD were compared between the two centers, and their ERCP procedures and therapeutic outcomes were analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 829 out of 3608 patients in the Lanzhou center and 241 out of 1198 in the Kyoto center had choledocholithiasis with PAD. Lots of clinical characteristics were significantly different between the two centers. The common bile duct (CBD) diameter was wider, choledocholithiasis size was lager and multiple CBD stones were more in the Lanzhou center patients than those in the Kyoto center patients (14.8 ± 5.2 mm 11.6 ± 4.2 mm, 12.2 ± 6.5 mm 8.2 ± 5.3 mm, 45.3% 20.3%, < 0.001 for all). In addition, concomitant diseases, such as acute cholangitis, gallbladder stones, obstructive jaundice, cholecystectomy, and acute pancreatitis, were significantly different between the two centers ( = 0.03 to < 0.001). In the Lanzhou center, CBD diameter and choledocholithiasis size were lower, and multiple CBD stones and acute cholangitis were less in non-PAD patients than those in PAD patients (13.4 ± 5.1 mm 14.8 ± 5.2 mm, 10.3 ± 5.4 mm 12.2 ± 6.5, 39% 45.3%, 13.9% 18.5%, = 0.002 to < 0.001). But all these characteristics were not significantly different in the Kyoto center. The proportions of endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST), endoscopic balloon dilatation (EPBD), and EST+EPBD were 50.5%, 1.7%, and 42.5% in the Lanzhou center and 90.0%, 0.0%, and 0.4% in the Kyoto center, respectively. However, the overall post-ERCP complication rate was not significantly different between the two centers (8.9% in the Lanzhou and 5.8% in the Kyoto. = 0.12). In the Lanzhou center, the difficulty rate in removing CBD stones in PAD was higher than in non-PAD group (35.3% 26.0%, < 0.001). But the rate was no significant difference between the two groups in Kyoto center. The residual rates of choledocholithiasis were not significantly different between the two groups in both centers. Post-ERCP complications occurred in 8.9% of the PAD patients and 8.1% of the non-PAD patients in the Lanzhou Center, and it occurred in 5.8% in PAD patients and 10.0% in non-PAD patients in the Kyoto center, all > 0.05.

CONCLUSION

Many clinical characteristics of choledocholithiasis patients with PAD were significantly different between the Lanzhou and Kyoto centers. The patients had larger and multiple stones, wider CBD diameter, and more possibility of acute cholangitis and obstructive jaundice in the Lanzhou center than those in the Kyoto center. The ERCP procedures to manage native duodenal papilla were different depending on the different clinical characteristics while the overall post-ERCP complications were not significantly different between the two centers. The stone residual rate and post-ERCP complications were not significantly different between choledocholithiasis patients with PAD and without PAD in each center.

摘要

背景

大多数关于壶腹周围憩室(PAD)对胆总管结石内镜逆行胰胆管造影(ERCP)治疗影响的研究基于一个内镜中心的数据,且缺乏对来自不同地区患者的胆总管结石合并PAD的临床特征进行比较。

目的

比较两个地区内镜中心胆总管结石的临床特征,并分析临床特征对合并PAD的胆总管结石患者ERCP方法的影响。

方法

2012年1月至2017年12月期间,在两个内镜中心(中国甘肃省兰州市兰州大学第一医院和日本京都京都第二红十字医院)首次接受ERCP治疗的患者。比较两个中心胆总管结石合并PAD的特征,并分析其ERCP操作及治疗结果。

结果

兰州中心3608例患者中有829例、京都中心1198例患者中有241例患有胆总管结石合并PAD。两个中心的许多临床特征存在显著差异。兰州中心患者的胆总管(CBD)直径更宽、胆总管结石更大且多发胆总管结石更多,高于京都中心患者(分别为14.8±5.2mm对11.6±4.2mm,12.2±6.5mm对8.2±5.3mm,45.3%对20.3%,均P<0.001)。此外,两个中心的伴随疾病,如急性胆管炎、胆囊结石、梗阻性黄疸、胆囊切除术和急性胰腺炎,也存在显著差异(P=0.03至<0.001)。在兰州中心,非PAD患者的CBD直径和胆总管结石大小较低,多发胆总管结石和急性胆管炎少于PAD患者(分别为13.4±5.1mm对14.8±5.2mm,10.3±5.4mm对12.2±6.5mm,39%对45.3%,13.9%对18.5%,P=0.002至<0.001)。但在京都中心,所有这些特征均无显著差异。兰州中心内镜括约肌切开术(EST)、内镜球囊扩张术(EPBD)和EST+EPBD的比例分别为50.5%、1.7%和42.5%,京都中心分别为90.0%、0.0%和0.4%。然而,两个中心ERCP术后总体并发症发生率无显著差异(兰州为8.9%,京都为5.8%,P=0.12)。在兰州中心,PAD患者胆总管结石取出困难率高于非PAD组(35.3%对26.0%,P<0.001)。但在京都中心,两组之间该率无显著差异。两个中心两组患者胆总管结石残留率无显著差异。兰州中心PAD患者和非PAD患者ERCP术后并发症发生率分别为8.9%和8.1%,京都中心PAD患者和非PAD患者分别为5.

相似文献

本文引用的文献

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