AIM： To compare small sphincterotomy combined with endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation （SES ＋ ELBD） and endoscopic sphincterotomy （EST） for large bile duct stones. METHODS： We compared prospectively SES...AIM： To compare small sphincterotomy combined with endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation （SES ＋ ELBD） and endoscopic sphincterotomy （EST） for large bile duct stones. METHODS： We compared prospectively SES ＋ ELBD （group A, n = 27） with conventional EST （group B, n = 28） for the treatment of large bile duct stones （≥ 15 mm）. When the stone could not be removed with a normal basket, mechanical lithotripsy was performed. We compared the rates of complete stone removal with one session and application of mechanical lithotripsy. RESULTS： No significant differences were observed in the mean largest stone size （A： 20.8 mm, B： 21.3 mm）, bile duct diameter （A： 21.4 turn, B： 20.5 ram）, number of stones （A： 2.2, B： 2.3）, or procedure time （A： 18 min, B： 19 rain） between the two groups. The rates of complete stone removal with one session was 85% in group A and 86% in group B （P = 0.473）. Mechanical lithotripsy was required for stone removal in nine of 27 patients （33%） in group A and nine of 28 patients （32%, P = 0.527） in group B.CONCLUSION： SES ＋ ELBD did not show significant benefits compared to conventional EST, especially for the removal of large （≥ 15 mm） bile duct stones.展开更多
AIM: To assess endoscopic papillary balloon dilatation (EPBD) and endoscopic sphincteropapillotomy (EST) for common bile duct (CBD) stone removal using a meta-analysis. METHODS: Randomized controlled trials published ...AIM: To assess endoscopic papillary balloon dilatation (EPBD) and endoscopic sphincteropapillotomy (EST) for common bile duct (CBD) stone removal using a meta-analysis. METHODS: Randomized controlled trials published from 1990 to 2012 comparing EPBD with EST for CBD stone removal were evaluated. This meta-analysis was performed to estimate short-term and long-term com-plications of these two treatments. The fixed random effect model or random effect model was established to analysis the data. Results were obtained by analyz-ing the relative risk, odds ratio, and 95%CI for a given comparison using RevMan 5.1. Statistical significance was defined asP < 0.05. Risk of bias was evaluated us-ing a funnel plot. RESULTS: Of the 1975 patients analyzed, 980 of them were treated with EPBD and 995 were treated with EST. Of the patient population, patients in the EPBDgroup were younger (OR=-1.16, 95%CI:-1.49 to 0.84, P<0.01). There were no significant differences in gender proportion, average size of stones, number of gallstones, previous cholecystectomy, the incidence of duodenal diverticulum, CBD diameter or the total follow-up time between EST and EPBD groups. Com-pared with EST, the total stone clearance in the EPBD group decreased (OR=0.64, 95%CI: 0.42 to 0.96,P=0.03), the use of stone extraction baskets significantly increased (OR=1.91, 95%CI: 1.41 to 2.59, P<0.01), and the incidence of pancreatitis significantly increased (OR=2.79, 95%CI: 1.74 to 4.45, P<0.0001). The incidence of bleeding (OR=0.12, 95%CI: 0.04 to 0.34, P<0.01) and cholecystitis (OR=0.41, 95%CI: 0.20 to 0.84, P=0.02) significantly decreased. The stone re-currence rate also was significantly reduced in EPBD (OR=0.48, 95%CI: 0.26 to 0.90, P=0.02). There were no significant differences between the two groups with the incidence of stone removal at first attempt, hours of operation, total short-term complications and infection, perforation, or acute cholangitis. CONCLUSION: Although the incidence of pancreatitis was higher, the overall stone clearance rate a展开更多
Endoscopic papillary balloon dilatation(EPBD) is useful for decreasing early complications of endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography(ERCP), including bleeding, biliary infection, and perforation, but it is ge...Endoscopic papillary balloon dilatation(EPBD) is useful for decreasing early complications of endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography(ERCP), including bleeding, biliary infection, and perforation, but it is generally avoided in Western countries because of a relatively high reported incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis(PEP). However, as the efficacy of endoscopic papillary largeballoon dilatation(EPLBD) becomes widely recognized, EPBD is attracting attention. Here we investigate whether EPBD is truly a risk factor for PEP, and seek safer and more effective EPBD procedures by reviewing past studies. We reviewed thirteen randomised control trials comparing EPBD and endoscopic sphincterotomy(EST) and ten studies comparing direct EPLBD and EST. Three randomized controlled trials of EPBD showed significantly higher incidence of PEP than EST, but no study of EPLBD did. Careful analysis of these studies suggested that longer and higher-pressure inflation of balloons might decrease PEP incidence. The paradoxical result that EPBD with small-calibre balloons increases PEP incidence while EPLBD does not may be due to insufficient papillary dilatation in the former. Insufficient dilatation could cause the high incidence of PEP through the use of mechanical lithotripsy and stress on the papilla at the time of stone removal. Sufficient dilation of the papilla may be useful in preventing PEP.展开更多
目的探讨暂时性金属内支架扩张术在贲门失弛缓介入治疗中应用及其中远期疗效随访。方法 20例贲门失弛缓患者,在 X 线引导下置入国产带膜支架,术后3d～7d,由内镜取出,20例贲门失弛缓患者安放暂时性金属内支架20只(其中20mm 直径支架12只;...目的探讨暂时性金属内支架扩张术在贲门失弛缓介入治疗中应用及其中远期疗效随访。方法 20例贲门失弛缓患者,在 X 线引导下置入国产带膜支架,术后3d～7d,由内镜取出,20例贲门失弛缓患者安放暂时性金属内支架20只(其中20mm 直径支架12只;25mm 直径支架8只),治疗前所有患者均有不同程度的吞咽困难,并给予食管下段括约肌(LES)静息压力测定。结果 20例患者支架置入和支架取出成功率均为100%,操作死亡率为0%,支架置入后吞咽困难明显好转,吞咽困难评分0级;贲门管腔直径20 mm 和25mm,平均(22±3)mm,暂时性支架扩张术后,贲门狭窄直径明显高于治疗前、吞咽困难评分明显低于治疗前、LES 静息压明显降低(P<0.001);支架置入前,食管管腔直径1～9(平均5±4) mm;支架取出1wk 内管腔直径为10～18(平均14±3)mm.吞咽困难评分术前为2～3(平均2.4±0.3)级;支架取出后吞咽困难评分为0～1(平均O.5±0.3)级支架置入前 LES 静息压力为40～66(平均53±10)mmHg(1mmHg=0.133kPa);支架取出后 LES 静息压力为0～20(平均10±8)mmHg.支架置入后并发症有胸部胀痛12例,反流8例,支架取出后少量出血3例,反流2例,所有并发症均给予有效处理,所有患者术后随访6～26(平均16.5±9.3)mo.随访期内使用直径20mm 支架的患者有3例(15%)在治疗后6mo 内复发吞咽困难,17例(85%)在随访期内吞咽能力明显好转。结论暂时性金属内支架扩张术是贲门失弛缓介入治疗中最有效的方法之一,且中远期疗效较好.展开更多
AIM:To evaluate the necessity of endoscopic nasobiliary drainage(ENBD)catheter placement after clearance of common bile duct(CBD)stones.METHODS:Patients enrolled in this study were randomly divided into two groups,acc...AIM:To evaluate the necessity of endoscopic nasobiliary drainage(ENBD)catheter placement after clearance of common bile duct(CBD)stones.METHODS:Patients enrolled in this study were randomly divided into two groups,according to whether or not they received ENBD after the removal of CBD stones.Group 1(ENBD group)was then subdividedinto three groups:G1a patients received an endoscopic papillary balloon dilatation(EPBD),G1b patients received an endoscopic sphincterotomy(EST),and G1c patients received neither.Group 2(non-ENBD group)patients were also subdivided into three groups(G2a,G2b,and G2c),similar to Group 1.The maximum CBD diameter,the time for C-reactive protein(CRP)to normalize,levels of serum amylase,total serum bilirubin(TB)and alanine aminotransferase(ALT),and postoperative hospitalization duration(PHD)were measured.RESULTS:A total of 218 patients(139 males,79females),with an average age of 60.1±10.8 years,were enrolled in this study.One hundred and thirteen patients who received ENBD were included in Group 1,and 105patients who did not receive ENBD were included in Group 2.The baseline clinical characteristics were similar in both groups.There were no significant differences in post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography(ERCP)-related complications when Groups 1 and 2 were compared.Seventy-seven patients underwent EPBD,and41 received an ENBD tube(G1a)and 36 did not(G2a).Seventy-three patients underwent EST,and 34 patients received an ENBD tube(G1b)and 39 did not(G2b).The remaining 68 patients underwent neither EPBD nor EST;of these patients,38 received an ENBD tube(G1c)and 30 did not(G2c).For each of the three pairs of subgroups(G1a vs G2a,G1b vs G2b,G1c vs G2c),there were no significant differences detected in the PHD or the time to normalization of CRP,TB and ALT.In the EPBD group,the incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis,hyperamylasemia and overall patient complications was significantly higher for G2a(post-ERCP pancreatitis:6/36vs 0/41,P=0.0217;hyperamylasemia:11/36 vs 4/41,P=0.0215;overall pat展开更多
文摘AIM： To compare small sphincterotomy combined with endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation （SES ＋ ELBD） and endoscopic sphincterotomy （EST） for large bile duct stones. METHODS： We compared prospectively SES ＋ ELBD （group A, n = 27） with conventional EST （group B, n = 28） for the treatment of large bile duct stones （≥ 15 mm）. When the stone could not be removed with a normal basket, mechanical lithotripsy was performed. We compared the rates of complete stone removal with one session and application of mechanical lithotripsy. RESULTS： No significant differences were observed in the mean largest stone size （A： 20.8 mm, B： 21.3 mm）, bile duct diameter （A： 21.4 turn, B： 20.5 ram）, number of stones （A： 2.2, B： 2.3）, or procedure time （A： 18 min, B： 19 rain） between the two groups. The rates of complete stone removal with one session was 85% in group A and 86% in group B （P = 0.473）. Mechanical lithotripsy was required for stone removal in nine of 27 patients （33%） in group A and nine of 28 patients （32%, P = 0.527） in group B.CONCLUSION： SES ＋ ELBD did not show significant benefits compared to conventional EST, especially for the removal of large （≥ 15 mm） bile duct stones.
文摘AIM: To assess endoscopic papillary balloon dilatation (EPBD) and endoscopic sphincteropapillotomy (EST) for common bile duct (CBD) stone removal using a meta-analysis. METHODS: Randomized controlled trials published from 1990 to 2012 comparing EPBD with EST for CBD stone removal were evaluated. This meta-analysis was performed to estimate short-term and long-term com-plications of these two treatments. The fixed random effect model or random effect model was established to analysis the data. Results were obtained by analyz-ing the relative risk, odds ratio, and 95%CI for a given comparison using RevMan 5.1. Statistical significance was defined asP < 0.05. Risk of bias was evaluated us-ing a funnel plot. RESULTS: Of the 1975 patients analyzed, 980 of them were treated with EPBD and 995 were treated with EST. Of the patient population, patients in the EPBDgroup were younger (OR=-1.16, 95%CI:-1.49 to 0.84, P<0.01). There were no significant differences in gender proportion, average size of stones, number of gallstones, previous cholecystectomy, the incidence of duodenal diverticulum, CBD diameter or the total follow-up time between EST and EPBD groups. Com-pared with EST, the total stone clearance in the EPBD group decreased (OR=0.64, 95%CI: 0.42 to 0.96,P=0.03), the use of stone extraction baskets significantly increased (OR=1.91, 95%CI: 1.41 to 2.59, P<0.01), and the incidence of pancreatitis significantly increased (OR=2.79, 95%CI: 1.74 to 4.45, P<0.0001). The incidence of bleeding (OR=0.12, 95%CI: 0.04 to 0.34, P<0.01) and cholecystitis (OR=0.41, 95%CI: 0.20 to 0.84, P=0.02) significantly decreased. The stone re-currence rate also was significantly reduced in EPBD (OR=0.48, 95%CI: 0.26 to 0.90, P=0.02). There were no significant differences between the two groups with the incidence of stone removal at first attempt, hours of operation, total short-term complications and infection, perforation, or acute cholangitis. CONCLUSION: Although the incidence of pancreatitis was higher, the overall stone clearance rate a
文摘Endoscopic papillary balloon dilatation(EPBD) is useful for decreasing early complications of endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography(ERCP), including bleeding, biliary infection, and perforation, but it is generally avoided in Western countries because of a relatively high reported incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis(PEP). However, as the efficacy of endoscopic papillary largeballoon dilatation(EPLBD) becomes widely recognized, EPBD is attracting attention. Here we investigate whether EPBD is truly a risk factor for PEP, and seek safer and more effective EPBD procedures by reviewing past studies. We reviewed thirteen randomised control trials comparing EPBD and endoscopic sphincterotomy(EST) and ten studies comparing direct EPLBD and EST. Three randomized controlled trials of EPBD showed significantly higher incidence of PEP than EST, but no study of EPLBD did. Careful analysis of these studies suggested that longer and higher-pressure inflation of balloons might decrease PEP incidence. The paradoxical result that EPBD with small-calibre balloons increases PEP incidence while EPLBD does not may be due to insufficient papillary dilatation in the former. Insufficient dilatation could cause the high incidence of PEP through the use of mechanical lithotripsy and stress on the papilla at the time of stone removal. Sufficient dilation of the papilla may be useful in preventing PEP.
文摘目的探讨暂时性金属内支架扩张术在贲门失弛缓介入治疗中应用及其中远期疗效随访。方法 20例贲门失弛缓患者,在 X 线引导下置入国产带膜支架,术后3d～7d,由内镜取出,20例贲门失弛缓患者安放暂时性金属内支架20只(其中20mm 直径支架12只;25mm 直径支架8只),治疗前所有患者均有不同程度的吞咽困难,并给予食管下段括约肌(LES)静息压力测定。结果 20例患者支架置入和支架取出成功率均为100%,操作死亡率为0%,支架置入后吞咽困难明显好转,吞咽困难评分0级;贲门管腔直径20 mm 和25mm,平均(22±3)mm,暂时性支架扩张术后,贲门狭窄直径明显高于治疗前、吞咽困难评分明显低于治疗前、LES 静息压明显降低(P<0.001);支架置入前,食管管腔直径1～9(平均5±4) mm;支架取出1wk 内管腔直径为10～18(平均14±3)mm.吞咽困难评分术前为2～3(平均2.4±0.3)级;支架取出后吞咽困难评分为0～1(平均O.5±0.3)级支架置入前 LES 静息压力为40～66(平均53±10)mmHg(1mmHg=0.133kPa);支架取出后 LES 静息压力为0～20(平均10±8)mmHg.支架置入后并发症有胸部胀痛12例,反流8例,支架取出后少量出血3例,反流2例,所有并发症均给予有效处理,所有患者术后随访6～26(平均16.5±9.3)mo.随访期内使用直径20mm 支架的患者有3例(15%)在治疗后6mo 内复发吞咽困难,17例(85%)在随访期内吞咽能力明显好转。结论暂时性金属内支架扩张术是贲门失弛缓介入治疗中最有效的方法之一,且中远期疗效较好.
文摘AIM:To evaluate the necessity of endoscopic nasobiliary drainage(ENBD)catheter placement after clearance of common bile duct(CBD)stones.METHODS:Patients enrolled in this study were randomly divided into two groups,according to whether or not they received ENBD after the removal of CBD stones.Group 1(ENBD group)was then subdividedinto three groups:G1a patients received an endoscopic papillary balloon dilatation(EPBD),G1b patients received an endoscopic sphincterotomy(EST),and G1c patients received neither.Group 2(non-ENBD group)patients were also subdivided into three groups(G2a,G2b,and G2c),similar to Group 1.The maximum CBD diameter,the time for C-reactive protein(CRP)to normalize,levels of serum amylase,total serum bilirubin(TB)and alanine aminotransferase(ALT),and postoperative hospitalization duration(PHD)were measured.RESULTS:A total of 218 patients(139 males,79females),with an average age of 60.1±10.8 years,were enrolled in this study.One hundred and thirteen patients who received ENBD were included in Group 1,and 105patients who did not receive ENBD were included in Group 2.The baseline clinical characteristics were similar in both groups.There were no significant differences in post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography(ERCP)-related complications when Groups 1 and 2 were compared.Seventy-seven patients underwent EPBD,and41 received an ENBD tube(G1a)and 36 did not(G2a).Seventy-three patients underwent EST,and 34 patients received an ENBD tube(G1b)and 39 did not(G2b).The remaining 68 patients underwent neither EPBD nor EST;of these patients,38 received an ENBD tube(G1c)and 30 did not(G2c).For each of the three pairs of subgroups(G1a vs G2a,G1b vs G2b,G1c vs G2c),there were no significant differences detected in the PHD or the time to normalization of CRP,TB and ALT.In the EPBD group,the incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis,hyperamylasemia and overall patient complications was significantly higher for G2a(post-ERCP pancreatitis:6/36vs 0/41,P=0.0217;hyperamylasemia:11/36 vs 4/41,P=0.0215;overall pat
