Feasibility of a Single Pigtail Stent Made by Cutting a Nasobiliary Drainage Tube in Endoscopic Transpapillary Gallbladder Stenting for Acute Cholecystitis.
cholecystitis
drainage
endoscopy
gallbladder
stents
Journal
Cureus
ISSN: 2168-8184
Titre abrégé: Cureus
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101596737
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
May 2022
May 2022
Historique:
accepted:
16
05
2022
entrez:
20
6
2022
pubmed:
21
6
2022
medline:
21
6
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Background and objective In this study, we aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of a single pigtail stent made by cutting a nasobiliary drainage tube (NBD stent) by comparing the clinical outcomes of using an NBD stent and those of using a ready-made double pigtail stent (RDP stent) in endoscopic gallbladder stenting (EGBS) for acute cholecystitis. Materials and methods This was a single-center retrospective study involving 20 cases that had technical success with EGBS for acute cholecystitis; the patients were divided into two groups: those using NBD stent (NBD group) and those using RDP stent (RDP group). The baseline characteristics and clinical outcomes were compared between the two groups. Results There were 13 patients in the NBD group and seven in the RDP group. The rates of clinical success (NBD group: 92% vs. RDP group: 100%, p=0.45) did not differ significantly between the groups. Regarding adverse events, gallbladder perforation occurred in one case in the NBD group; however, no other adverse events occurred in either group (NBD group: 7.7% vs. RDP group: 0%, p=0.45). The stent patency periods did not differ significantly between the groups [NBD group: 43 (12-64) days vs. RDP group: 97 (58-215) days, p=0.17]. The stent patency period in cases of long-term stent placement after EGBS was 1,381 days and 1,579 days in the NBD group and 305 days in the RDP group, respectively. Conclusion NBD stents are considered as effective as RDP stents in EGBS for acute cholecystitis. They are highly versatile and can be used for both bridging to surgery and long-term stent placement.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35719771
doi: 10.7759/cureus.25072
pmc: PMC9202489
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
e25072Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2022, Takahashi et al.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Références
Gastrointest Endosc. 2019 Feb;89(2):289-298
pubmed: 30213575
Dig Endosc. 2018 Jul;30(4):501-507
pubmed: 29399891
J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci. 2018 Jan;25(1):73-86
pubmed: 29095575
Surg Endosc. 2016 Dec;30(12):5200-5208
pubmed: 27059975
Gastrointest Endosc. 2010 Mar;71(3):446-54
pubmed: 20189503
Gastrointest Endosc. 2008 Sep;68(3):455-60
pubmed: 18561927
J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci. 2018 Jan;25(1):55-72
pubmed: 29045062
Endosc Ultrasound. 2021 Nov-Dec;10(6):448-454
pubmed: 34782492
Ann Gastroenterol. 2020 Jul-Aug;33(4):391-397
pubmed: 32624660
HPB (Oxford). 2020 Jul;22(7):996-1003
pubmed: 31685380
BMC Surg. 2021 Apr 7;21(1):184
pubmed: 33827521
Endosc Int Open. 2019 Sep;7(9):E1105-E1114
pubmed: 31475227