期刊文献+

Outcomes of endoscopic sphincterotomy vs open choledochotomy for common bile duct stones 被引量:17

Outcomes of endoscopic sphincterotomy vs open choledochotomy for common bile duct stones
下载PDF
导出
摘要 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 To compare the outcomes of EST vs OCT for the management of CBDS and to clarify the risk factors associated with stone recurrence.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 In total, 302 patients undergoing successful EST(n = 168) or OCT(n = 134) were enrolled in the study and were followed for a median of 6.3 years. After propensity score matching, 176 patients remained, and all covariates were balanced. EST was associated with significantly shorter time to relieving biliary obstruction, anesthetic duration, procedure time, and hospital stay than OCT(P <0.001). The number of complete stone clearance sessions increased significantly in the EST group(P = 0.009). The overall incidence of complications and mortality did not differ significantly between the two groups. Recurrent CBDS occurred in18.8%(33/176) of the patients overall, but no difference was found between the EST(20.5%, 18/88) and OCT(17.0%, 15/88) groups. Factors associated with CBDS recurrence included common bile duct(CBD) diameter > 15 mm(OR =2.72; 95%CI: 1.26-5.87; P = 0.011), multiple CBDS(OR = 5.09; 95%CI: 2.58-10.07; P< 0.001), and distal CBD angle ≤ 145°(OR = 2.92; 95%CI: 1.54-5.55; P = 0.001). The prediction model incorporating these factors demonstrated an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.81(95%CI: 0.76-0.87).CONCLUSION 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. 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 To compare the outcomes of EST vs OCT for the management of CBDS and to clarify the risk factors associated with stone recurrence.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 In total, 302 patients undergoing successful EST(n = 168) or OCT(n = 134) were enrolled in the study and were followed for a median of 6.3 years. After propensity score matching, 176 patients remained, and all covariates were balanced. EST was associated with significantly shorter time to relieving biliary obstruction, anesthetic duration, procedure time, and hospital stay than OCT(P <0.001). The number of complete stone clearance sessions increased significantly in the EST group(P = 0.009). The overall incidence of complications and mortality did not differ significantly between the two groups. Recurrent CBDS occurred in18.8%(33/176) of the patients overall, but no difference was found between the EST(20.5%, 18/88) and OCT(17.0%, 15/88) groups. Factors associated with CBDS recurrence included common bile duct(CBD) diameter > 15 mm(OR =2.72; 95%CI: 1.26-5.87; P = 0.011), multiple CBDS(OR = 5.09; 95%CI: 2.58-10.07; P< 0.001), and distal CBD angle ≤ 145°(OR = 2.92; 95%CI: 1.54-5.55; P = 0.001). The prediction model incorporating these factors demonstrated an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.81(95%CI: 0.76-0.87).CONCLUSION 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.
出处 《World Journal of Gastroenterology》 SCIE CAS 2019年第4期485-497,共13页 世界胃肠病学杂志(英文版)
关键词 Common BILE DUCT STONE CHOLEDOCHOTOMY Endoscopic SPHINCTEROTOMY Outcome RECURRENCE Risk factor Common bile duct stone Choledochotomy Endoscopic sphincterotomy Outcome Recurrence Risk factor
  • 相关文献

参考文献2

二级参考文献16

  • 1Yan-Bing Ding,Bin Deng,Xin-Nong Liu,Jian Wu,Wei-Ming Xiao,Yuan-Zhi Wang,Jian-Ming Ma,Qiang Li,Ze-Sheng Ju.Synchronous vs sequential laparoscopic cholecystectomy for cholecystocholedocholithiasis[J].World Journal of Gastroenterology,2013,19(13):2080-2086. 被引量:4
  • 2Xiangsong Wu,Yong Yang,Ping Dong,Jun Gu,Jianhua Lu,Maolan Li,Jiasheng Mu,Wenguang Wu,Jiahua Yang,Lin Zhang,Qichen Ding,Yingbin Liu.Primary closure versus T-tube drainage in laparoscopic common bile duct exploration: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials[J]. Langenbeck’s Archives of Surgery . 2012 (6)
  • 3M. Ambreen,A.R. Shaikh,A. Jamal,J.N. Qureshi,A.G. Dalwani,M.M. Memon.Primary Closure Versus T-tube Drainage After Open Choledochotomy[J].Asian Journal of Surgery.2009(1)
  • 4Dennis Leung,Amy K. Yetasook,JoAnn Carbray,Zeeshan Butt,Yumiko Hoeger,Woody Denham,Ermilo Barrera,Michael B. Ujiki.Single-Incision Surgery Has Higher Cost with Equivalent Pain and Quality-of-Life Scores Compared with Multiple-Incision Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: A Prospective Randomized Blinded Comparison[J].Journal of the American College of Surgeons.2012(5)
  • 5Li-Na Hsueh,Hon-Yi Shi,Tsai-Fan Wang,Chiung-Ying Chang,King-Teh Lee.Health-related quality of life in patients undergoing cholecystectomy[J].Kaohsiung Journal of Medical Sciences.2011(7)
  • 6Faisal Hanif,Zubir Ahmed,M. Abdel Samie,Ahmad H. M. Nassar.Laparoscopic transcystic bile duct exploration: the treatment of first choice for common bile duct stones[J].Surgical Endoscopy.2010(7)
  • 7Hon-Yi Shi,Hao-Hsien Lee,Chong-Chi Chiu,Herng-Chia Chiu,Yih-Huei Uen,King-Teh Lee.Responsiveness and Minimal Clinically Important Differences after Cholecystectomy: GIQLI Versus SF-36[J].Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery.2008(7)
  • 8M.Sugiyama,Y.Atomi.Follow‐up of more than 10 years after endoscopic sphincterotomy for choledocholithiasis in young patients[J].Br J Surg.2003(7)
  • 9G. Costamagna,A. Tringali,S. Shah,M. Mutignani,G. Zuccalà,V. Perri.Long-Term Follow-Up of Patients After Endoscopic Sphincterotomy for Choledocholithiasis, and Risk Factors for Recurrence[J].Endoscopy.2002(04)
  • 10Sun YoungYi.Recurrence of biliary symptoms after endoscopic sphincterotomy for choledocholithiasis in patients with gall bladder stones[J].Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology.2001(6)

共引文献51

同被引文献103

引证文献17

二级引证文献85

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部