Peroral Cholangioscopy-guided Electrohydraulic Lithotripsy with a SpyGlass DS Versus a Conventional Digital Cholangioscope for Difficult Bile Duct Stones.
cholangiopancreatoscopy
difficult stone
endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography
single-operator
Journal
Internal medicine (Tokyo, Japan)
ISSN: 1349-7235
Titre abrégé: Intern Med
Pays: Japan
ID NLM: 9204241
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
15 Aug 2020
15 Aug 2020
Historique:
pubmed:
12
5
2020
medline:
29
12
2020
entrez:
12
5
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Objective Recently, a new digital peroral cholangioscopy (POCS) system, the SpyGlass DS (SpyDS), has been used for POCS-guided lithotripsy for difficult bile duct stones (DBDSs). The aim of this retrospective study was to compare the efficacy of SpyDS-guided electrohydraulic lithotripsy (EHL) for DBDS with that of a conventional digital cholangioscope. Methods Seventeen consecutive patients who had undergone POCS-guided EHL for DBDS with the SpyDS between October 2015 and January 2019 were enrolled in this study group (SpyDS group) using a prospectively maintained database. Fifteen other consecutive patients who had undergone POCS-guided EHL with a conventional digital cholangioscope (CHF-B260) just prior to the introduction of the SpyDS between December 2006 and September 2015 were analyzed as a control group (CHF group). The main outcome measurement was the total procedure time to complete stone removal. Results The rate of complete stone removal was 100% for both groups. The mean total procedure time for the SpyDS group was significantly shorter than that for the CHF group (67±30 minutes vs. 107±64 minutes, p=0.038). The mean number of endoscopic sessions for the SpyDS group was significantly lower than that for the CHF group (1.35±0.49 vs. 2.00±0.85, p=0.037). There were no significant differences in the rate of adverse events between the two groups. Conclusion The SpyDS appears useful for decreasing the procedure time and number of endoscopic sessions for complete stone removal in POCS-guided EHL for DBDS compared with a conventional digital cholangioscope.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32389946
doi: 10.2169/internalmedicine.4463-20
pmc: PMC7492117
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1925-1930Références
Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2018 Jun;16(6):918-926.e1
pubmed: 29074446
Dig Endosc. 2010 Jul;22 Suppl 1:S85-9
pubmed: 20590779
Gastrointest Endosc. 2010 Mar;71(3):446-54
pubmed: 20189503
Curr Treat Options Gastroenterol. 2016 Jun;14(2):210-9
pubmed: 27053226
Endosc Int Open. 2017 Jan;5(1):E54-E58
pubmed: 28337482
Curr Treat Options Gastroenterol. 2019 Sep;17(3):327-341
pubmed: 31342265
Dig Endosc. 2019 May;31(3):256-269
pubmed: 30468534
Gastrointest Endosc. 2011 Feb;73(2):251-6
pubmed: 21106195
Endosc Int Open. 2018 Feb;6(2):E199-E204
pubmed: 29399618
GE Port J Gastroenterol. 2019 Mar;26(2):105-113
pubmed: 30976615
Endosc Int Open. 2018 Nov;6(11):E1349-E1354
pubmed: 30410956
HPB (Oxford). 2018 Mar;20(3):285-288
pubmed: 29107445
Dig Endosc. 2013 Jul;25(4):376-85
pubmed: 23650878
Gastrointest Endosc. 2011 Dec;74(6):1308-14
pubmed: 22136776
J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci. 2016 Apr;23(4):220-6
pubmed: 26822740
Endoscopy. 2019 May;51(5):472-491
pubmed: 30943551
Gastrointest Endosc. 2016 Oct;84(4):649-55
pubmed: 26995690
Gut Liver. 2018 Jul 15;12(4):457-462
pubmed: 29409310