Suppr超能文献

内镜下乳头球囊扩张术与小切口内镜括约肌切开术治疗非扩张性远端胆管患者内镜逆行胰胆管造影相关不良事件的比较

Endoscopic Papillary Balloon Dilation Versus Small Endoscopic Sphincterotomy for Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography-Related Adverse Events in Patients With Non-Dilated Distal Bile Duct.

作者信息

Gao Lili, Yan Huafang, Bu Limei, Zhang Hao

机构信息

Center for Medical Research and Innovation.

Department of Health Examination.

出版信息

Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2025 Apr 1;35(2):e1200. doi: 10.1097/SLE.0000000000001200.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

Endoscopic papillary balloon dilation (EPBD), small endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST), and small EST plus EPBD are commonly used as rescue techniques to remove bile duct stones. However, we often encountered challenging cases with non-dilated distal bile ducts, especially in those undergoing EPBD. We aimed to explore the reasons by assessing whether patients without the dilated bile duct had a higher risk of early complications and whether it was impacted by the rescue techniques.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective cohort study by frequency matching design in patients diagnosed with stones in non-dilated distal bile duct who received rescue techniques from July 2016 to June 2022. Besides, patients with stones and without dilatation of the distal bile duct (DDBD) were divided into 3 subgroups according to the rescue technique received. Outcomes were compared between the subgroups.

RESULTS

The non-DDBD group was more likely to develop post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis (PEP) and hyperamylasemia (HP) than the DDBD group ( P < 0.05). Some cases had mild or moderate pancreatitis, but no one in either group developed severe pancreatitis. For subgroup analysis, each technique resulted in complete stone removal; the EPBD group had a higher HP rate than the other subgroups and reached statistical significance: the EPBD group versus the small EST group ( P = 0.013) and the EPBD group versus the EPBD plus small EST group ( P = 0.008). Although there was no statistical significance, PEP incidence in the EPBD group was 13.7% higher than in other subgroups ( P > 0.05/3).

CONCLUSION

Non-DDBD patients have a higher risk for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography-related pancreatic inflammation. EPBD should be used cautiously due to the significant association with increased rates of PEP and HP. Conversely, small EST and combination therapy are suitable for non-dilated bile duct stones because of their high safety profile and efficacy.

摘要

目的

内镜下乳头球囊扩张术(EPBD)、小切口内镜括约肌切开术(EST)以及小切口EST联合EPBD通常用作清除胆管结石的补救技术。然而,我们经常遇到远端胆管未扩张的具有挑战性的病例,尤其是在接受EPBD的患者中。我们旨在通过评估未扩张胆管的患者是否有更高的早期并发症风险以及这是否受补救技术的影响来探究原因。

方法

我们采用频率匹配设计进行了一项回顾性队列研究,研究对象为2016年7月至2022年6月期间接受补救技术治疗的诊断为远端胆管未扩张且有结石的患者。此外,有结石且远端胆管未扩张(DDBD)的患者根据接受的补救技术分为3个亚组。对亚组之间的结果进行比较。

结果

与DDBD组相比,非DDBD组更易发生内镜逆行胰胆管造影术后胰腺炎(PEP)和高淀粉酶血症(HP)(P<0.05)。一些病例有轻度或中度胰腺炎,但两组均无人发生重症胰腺炎。对于亚组分析,每种技术均能完全清除结石;EPBD组的HP发生率高于其他亚组且具有统计学意义:EPBD组与小切口EST组相比(P = 0.013),EPBD组与EPBD联合小切口EST组相比(P = 0.008)。尽管无统计学意义,但EPBD组的PEP发生率比其他亚组高13.7%(P>0.05/3)。

结论

非DDBD患者发生内镜逆行胰胆管造影相关胰腺炎症的风险更高。由于与PEP和HP发生率增加显著相关,应谨慎使用EPBD。相反,小切口EST及联合治疗因其高安全性和有效性而适用于未扩张胆管结石。

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