New common bile duct morphological subtypes: Risk predictors of common bile duct stone recurrence.
Common bile duct morphology
Common bile duct stones
Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography
Recurrence
Risk factors
Journal
World journal of gastrointestinal surgery
ISSN: 1948-9366
Titre abrégé: World J Gastrointest Surg
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101532473
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
27 Mar 2022
27 Mar 2022
Historique:
received:
01
11
2021
revised:
12
12
2021
accepted:
06
03
2022
entrez:
18
4
2022
pubmed:
19
4
2022
medline:
19
4
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is the primary treatment for removing common bile duct (CBD) stones. The risk factors for CBD stone recurrence after ERCP have been discussed for many years. However, the influence of CBD morphology has never been noticed. To evaluate CBD morphology and other predictors affecting CBD stone recurrence in average patients. A retrospective analysis of 502 CBD stone patients who underwent successful therapeutic ERCP for stone extraction at our centre from February 2020 to January 2021 was conducted. CBD morphology and other predictors affecting CBD stone recurrence were examined by univariate analysis and multivariate logistic regression analysis. CBD morphology ( CBD diameter ≥ 1.5 cm and CBD morphology, especially S type and polyline type, were associated with increased recurrence of CBD stones. In addition, ESBD was related to decreased recurrence. Patients with these risk factors should undergo periodic surveillance and standard prophylactic therapy.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is the primary treatment for removing common bile duct (CBD) stones. The risk factors for CBD stone recurrence after ERCP have been discussed for many years. However, the influence of CBD morphology has never been noticed.
AIM
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate CBD morphology and other predictors affecting CBD stone recurrence in average patients.
METHODS
METHODS
A retrospective analysis of 502 CBD stone patients who underwent successful therapeutic ERCP for stone extraction at our centre from February 2020 to January 2021 was conducted. CBD morphology and other predictors affecting CBD stone recurrence were examined by univariate analysis and multivariate logistic regression analysis.
RESULTS
RESULTS
CBD morphology (
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
CBD diameter ≥ 1.5 cm and CBD morphology, especially S type and polyline type, were associated with increased recurrence of CBD stones. In addition, ESBD was related to decreased recurrence. Patients with these risk factors should undergo periodic surveillance and standard prophylactic therapy.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35432763
doi: 10.4240/wjgs.v14.i3.236
pmc: PMC8984516
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
236-246Informations de copyright
©The Author(s) 2022. Published by Baishideng Publishing Group Inc. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Conflict-of-interest statement: The authors disclose no conflicts.
Références
Br J Surg. 1988 Sep;75(9):899-900
pubmed: 3179669
Endoscopy. 2015 Jul;47(7):611-6
pubmed: 25730282
Ann Transl Med. 2020 Nov;8(21):1383
pubmed: 33313128
Medicine (Baltimore). 2016 Apr;95(15):e3157
pubmed: 27082555
World J Gastroenterol. 2011 Sep 28;17(36):4118-23
pubmed: 22039327
Endoscopy. 2019 May;51(5):472-491
pubmed: 30943551
Gastrointest Endosc. 2006 Jul;64(1):60-5
pubmed: 16813804
N Engl J Med. 1996 Sep 26;335(13):909-18
pubmed: 8782497
Surg Endosc. 2017 Feb;31(2):650-655
pubmed: 27317037
World J Gastroenterol. 2014 Dec 21;20(47):17962-9
pubmed: 25548495
World J Gastroenterol. 2013 Jun 28;19(24):3883-91
pubmed: 23840129
Endoscopy. 2021 May;53(5):491-498
pubmed: 32838430
PLoS One. 2013;8(1):e54601
pubmed: 23365676
Surg Endosc. 2022 May;36(5):2786-2792
pubmed: 34031744
Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2006 May;18(5):461-4
pubmed: 16607138
BMC Gastroenterol. 2018 Mar 15;18(1):39
pubmed: 29544453
Gastrointest Endosc. 2021 Mar;93(3):608-615
pubmed: 32598960
Gastrointest Endosc. 2001 Jul;54(1):42-8
pubmed: 11427840
Gut Liver. 2016 May 23;10(3):420-8
pubmed: 26780090
Dig Dis Sci. 2013 Apr;58(4):1100-9
pubmed: 23225136
Gastrointest Endosc. 2007 Dec;66(6):1154-60
pubmed: 17945223
Am J Gastroenterol. 2002 Nov;97(11):2763-7
pubmed: 12425545
Endoscopy. 2019 Aug;51(8):763-771
pubmed: 30786316
Gastrointest Endosc. 2015 Oct;82(4):660-5
pubmed: 25952091
Gastrointest Endosc. 2001 Sep;54(3):346-50
pubmed: 11522976
Dig Endosc. 2009 Apr;21(2):73-7
pubmed: 19691777
Gastroenterol Res Pract. 2012;2012:417821
pubmed: 22991508
Gut. 1986 Oct;27(10):1193-8
pubmed: 3781333
J Gastroenterol. 2018 May;53(5):670-678
pubmed: 29192348
Gastrointest Endosc. 2018 Jan;87(1):43-57.e10
pubmed: 28756105
Endoscopy. 1998 Sep;30(7):601-4
pubmed: 9826137
Gut Liver. 2012 Jan;6(1):107-12
pubmed: 22375179
World J Gastroenterol. 2017 Aug 21;23(31):5739-5745
pubmed: 28883699
World J Gastrointest Endosc. 2017 Jan 16;9(1):26-33
pubmed: 28101305
Endoscopy. 2009 Oct;41(10):849-54
pubmed: 19750447
World J Clin Cases. 2019 May 6;7(9):1028-1037
pubmed: 31123675
Oncol Rep. 1998 Jan-Feb;5(1):87-98
pubmed: 9458300
Dig Surg. 2010;27(2):87-9
pubmed: 20551648
Gut. 2003 Jan;52(1):116-21
pubmed: 12477771
PLoS One. 2017 Jul 10;12(7):e0180536
pubmed: 28692706
World J Gastroenterol. 2019 Jan 28;25(4):485-497
pubmed: 30700944
J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci. 2016 Nov;23(11):703-707
pubmed: 27526946
World J Clin Cases. 2021 Sep 16;9(26):7671-7681
pubmed: 34621818
Dig Dis Sci. 2015 Jul;60(7):2144-9
pubmed: 25875753
Endoscopy. 1999 Sep;31(7):546-9
pubmed: 10533739
Gut. 2004 Dec;53(12):1856-9
pubmed: 15542528
Gastrointest Endosc. 1992 Jul-Aug;38(4):444-9
pubmed: 1511819
Clin Endosc. 2013 Nov;46(6):637-42
pubmed: 24340257
Gut Liver. 2017 Jan 15;11(1):149-155
pubmed: 27538442
Surg Endosc. 2021 Dec;35(12):6497-6504
pubmed: 33201313
Endoscopy. 2002 Apr;34(4):273-9
pubmed: 11932781