de Rijk Florence E M, Stassen Pauline M C, van der Wiel Sophia E, Boermeester Marja A, Issa Yama, Kempeneers Marinus A, Verdonk Robert C, Bruno Marco J, de Jonge Pieter Jan F
Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Department of Research and Development, St. Antonius Hospital, Nieuwegein, The Netherlands.
Endosc Int Open. 2023 Mar 24;11(3):E296-E304. doi: 10.1055/a-2035-8969. eCollection 2023 Mar.
Pancreatoscopy-guided electrohydraulic lithotripsy (EHL) has proven to be an effective first-line therapy in symptomatic chronic pancreatitis (CP) patients with obstructing pancreatic duct (PD) stones 1 . However, long-term outcomes of endoscopic EHL remain unknown. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the long-term treatment effects of EHL as first-line therapy and to compare with those obtained in a historical cohort of patients who underwent extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL) as primary treatment. An observational retrospective single-center long-term follow-up study was performed including 19 consecutive patients who previously underwent endoscopic EHL compared to 18 patients who underwent ESWL followed by endoscopic retrograde pancreatography (ERP). The primary endpoint was long-term treatment success after EHL or ESWL defined as no recurrence of symptomatic intraductal stones confirmed on imaging. Secondary endpoints for the EHL-population included long-term clinical success (i. e., a similar or lower Izbicki Pain Score or reduction in opiate usage as compared to 6-month follow-up), quality of life (QoL), pancreatic function and hospital re-admission rate. In the EHL group, 37 % of the patients developed recurrent symptomatic PD stones versus 61 % in the ESWL group after a median follow-up of 35.0 and 76.5 months. Of the patients with recurrence, 71 % versus 100 % underwent a reintervention. Median time to recurrence was 12.0 versus 13.0 months. Clinical success sustained in 58 % of the EHL patients. QoL was not significantly different compared with 6-month follow-up and baseline. Also at long-term follow-up, endoscopic EHL as first-line treatment is moderately effective for symptomatic CP patients with treatment success rates that seems at least equally effective as ESWL.
胰管镜引导下的电液压碎石术(EHL)已被证明是治疗有症状的慢性胰腺炎(CP)且伴有阻塞性胰管(PD)结石患者的一种有效的一线治疗方法。然而,内镜下EHL的长期疗效仍不明确。本研究的目的是评估EHL作为一线治疗的长期疗效,并与一组接受体外冲击波碎石术(ESWL)作为主要治疗方法的历史队列患者的疗效进行比较。进行了一项观察性回顾性单中心长期随访研究,纳入了19例先前接受内镜下EHL的连续患者,并与18例接受ESWL后行内镜逆行胰胆管造影术(ERP)的患者进行对比。主要终点是EHL或ESWL后的长期治疗成功,定义为影像学检查未证实有症状的导管内结石复发。EHL组的次要终点包括长期临床成功(即与6个月随访相比,Izbicki疼痛评分相似或更低,或阿片类药物使用减少)、生活质量(QoL)、胰腺功能和医院再入院率。在EHL组中,中位随访35.0个月和76.5个月后,37%的患者出现复发性有症状的PD结石,而ESWL组为61%。在复发患者中,71%与100%接受了再次干预。复发的中位时间为12.0个月与13.0个月。58%的EHL患者维持了临床成功。与6个月随访和基线相比,QoL无显著差异。同样在长期随访中,内镜下EHL作为一线治疗对有症状的CP患者具有中等疗效,治疗成功率似乎至少与ESWL一样有效。