Outcomes of endoscopic sphincterotomy
Aged
Cholangiopancreatography, Endoscopic Retrograde
/ adverse effects
Choledocholithiasis
/ diagnostic imaging
Common Bile Duct
/ diagnostic imaging
Female
Follow-Up Studies
Humans
Length of Stay
/ statistics & numerical data
Male
Middle Aged
Pancreatitis
/ epidemiology
Postoperative Complications
/ epidemiology
Recurrence
Retrospective Studies
Risk Factors
Sphincterotomy, Endoscopic
/ adverse effects
Survival Rate
Treatment Outcome
Choledochotomy
Common bile duct stone
Endoscopic sphincterotomy
Outcome
Recurrence
Risk factor
Journal
World journal of gastroenterology
ISSN: 2219-2840
Titre abrégé: World J Gastroenterol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 100883448
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
28 Jan 2019
28 Jan 2019
Historique:
received:
17
11
2018
revised:
13
12
2018
accepted:
09
01
2019
entrez:
1
2
2019
pubmed:
1
2
2019
medline:
6
4
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) for the management of common bile duct stones (CBDS) is used increasingly widely because it is a minimally invasive procedure. However, some clinical practitioners argued that EST may be complicated by post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP) and accompanied by a higher recurrence of CBDS than open choledochotomy (OCT). Whether any differences in outcomes exist between these two approaches for treating CBDS has not been thoroughly elucidated to date. To compare the outcomes of EST Patients who underwent EST or OCT for CBDS between January 2010 and December 2012 were enrolled in this retrospective study. Follow-up data were obtained through telephone or by searching the medical records. Statistical analysis was carried out for 302 patients who had a follow-up period of at least 5 years or had a recurrence. Propensity score matching (1:1) was performed to adjust for clinical differences. A logistic regression model was used to identify potential risk factors for recurrence, and a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was generated for qualifying independent risk factors. In total, 302 patients undergoing successful EST ( EST is superior to OCT with regard to time to biliary obstruction relief, anesthetic duration, procedure time, and hospital stay and is not associated with an increased recurrence rate or mortality compared with OCT in the management of CBDS.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) for the management of common bile duct stones (CBDS) is used increasingly widely because it is a minimally invasive procedure. However, some clinical practitioners argued that EST may be complicated by post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP) and accompanied by a higher recurrence of CBDS than open choledochotomy (OCT). Whether any differences in outcomes exist between these two approaches for treating CBDS has not been thoroughly elucidated to date.
AIM
OBJECTIVE
To compare the outcomes of EST
METHODS
METHODS
Patients who underwent EST or OCT for CBDS between January 2010 and December 2012 were enrolled in this retrospective study. Follow-up data were obtained through telephone or by searching the medical records. Statistical analysis was carried out for 302 patients who had a follow-up period of at least 5 years or had a recurrence. Propensity score matching (1:1) was performed to adjust for clinical differences. A logistic regression model was used to identify potential risk factors for recurrence, and a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was generated for qualifying independent risk factors.
RESULTS
RESULTS
In total, 302 patients undergoing successful EST (
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
EST is superior to OCT with regard to time to biliary obstruction relief, anesthetic duration, procedure time, and hospital stay and is not associated with an increased recurrence rate or mortality compared with OCT in the management of CBDS.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30700944
doi: 10.3748/wjg.v25.i4.485
pmc: PMC6350168
doi:
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
485-497Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Conflict-of-interest statement: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Références
Endoscopy. 2002 Apr;34(4):273-9
pubmed: 11932781
Gastrointest Endosc. 2003 May;57(6):633-8
pubmed: 12709688
Gut. 2004 Dec;53(12):1856-9
pubmed: 15542528
N Engl J Med. 1992 Jun 11;326(24):1582-6
pubmed: 1584258
World J Surg. 2005 Jul;29(7):869-72
pubmed: 15951939
Gastrointest Endosc. 2007 Dec;66(6):1154-60
pubmed: 17945223
Asian J Surg. 2009 Jan;32(1):21-5
pubmed: 19321398
Dig Endosc. 2009 Jul;21(3):170-5
pubmed: 19691764
Surg Endosc. 2010 Jul;24(7):1552-6
pubmed: 20044767
Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2011 Jan;396(1):53-62
pubmed: 20582601
N Engl J Med. 2012 Apr 12;366(15):1414-22
pubmed: 22494121
Gut Liver. 2012 Apr;6(2):172-87
pubmed: 22570746
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013 Dec 12;(12):CD003327
pubmed: 24338858
World J Gastroenterol. 2014 Jul 7;20(25):8237-43
pubmed: 25009398
Gastrointest Endosc. 2015 Oct;82(4):660-5
pubmed: 25952091
Gastrointest Endosc. 2017 Apr;85(4):782-790.e1
pubmed: 27597425
World J Gastrointest Endosc. 2017 Jan 16;9(1):26-33
pubmed: 28101305
J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci. 2018 Jan;25(1):17-30
pubmed: 29032610
Ann Surg. 1988 Feb;207(2):135-41
pubmed: 3341812
Scand J Gastroenterol. 1987 Oct;22(8):903-6
pubmed: 3685877
Gut. 1984 Nov;25(11):1247-54
pubmed: 6500363
Am J Surg. 1993 Apr;165(4):483-6
pubmed: 8480887
Gastroenterology. 1996 Mar;110(3):894-9
pubmed: 8608900
N Engl J Med. 1996 Sep 26;335(13):909-18
pubmed: 8782497
Gut. 1997 Jun;40(6):697-700
pubmed: 9245919
Br J Surg. 1998 Jul;85(7):917-21
pubmed: 9692563