Endoscopic Papillary Balloon Dilation Versus Small Endoscopic Sphincterotomy for Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography-Related Adverse Events in Patients With Non-Dilated Distal Bile Duct.

IF 1.1 4区 医学 Q3 SURGERY
Lili Gao, Huafang Yan, Limei Bu, Hao Zhang
{"title":"Endoscopic Papillary Balloon Dilation Versus Small Endoscopic Sphincterotomy for Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography-Related Adverse Events in Patients With Non-Dilated Distal Bile Duct.","authors":"Lili Gao, Huafang Yan, Limei Bu, Hao Zhang","doi":"10.1097/SLE.0000000000001200","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Endoscopic papillary balloon dilation (EPBD), small endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST), and small EST plus EPBD are commonly used as rescue techniques to remove bile duct stones. However, we often encountered challenging cases with non-dilated distal bile ducts, especially in those undergoing EPBD. We aimed to explore the reasons by assessing whether patients without the dilated bile duct had a higher risk of early complications and whether it was impacted by the rescue techniques.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We performed a retrospective cohort study by frequency matching design in patients diagnosed with stones in non-dilated distal bile duct who received rescue techniques from July 2016 to June 2022. Besides, patients with stones and without dilatation of the distal bile duct (DDBD) were divided into 3 subgroups according to the rescue technique received. Outcomes were compared between the subgroups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The non-DDBD group was more likely to develop post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis (PEP) and hyperamylasemia (HP) than the DDBD group (P < 0.05). Some cases had mild or moderate pancreatitis, but no one in either group developed severe pancreatitis. For subgroup analysis, each technique resulted in complete stone removal; the EPBD group had a higher HP rate than the other subgroups and reached statistical significance: the EPBD group versus the small EST group (P = 0.013) and the EPBD group versus the EPBD plus small EST group (P = 0.008). Although there was no statistical significance, PEP incidence in the EPBD group was 13.7% higher than in other subgroups (P > 0.05/3).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Non-DDBD patients have a higher risk for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography-related pancreatic inflammation. EPBD should be used cautiously due to the significant association with increased rates of PEP and HP. Conversely, small EST and combination therapy are suitable for non-dilated bile duct stones because of their high safety profile and efficacy.</p>","PeriodicalId":22092,"journal":{"name":"Surgical Laparoscopy, Endoscopy & Percutaneous Techniques","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Surgical Laparoscopy, Endoscopy & Percutaneous Techniques","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/SLE.0000000000001200","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: Endoscopic papillary balloon dilation (EPBD), small endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST), and small EST plus EPBD are commonly used as rescue techniques to remove bile duct stones. However, we often encountered challenging cases with non-dilated distal bile ducts, especially in those undergoing EPBD. We aimed to explore the reasons by assessing whether patients without the dilated bile duct had a higher risk of early complications and whether it was impacted by the rescue techniques.

Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study by frequency matching design in patients diagnosed with stones in non-dilated distal bile duct who received rescue techniques from July 2016 to June 2022. Besides, patients with stones and without dilatation of the distal bile duct (DDBD) were divided into 3 subgroups according to the rescue technique received. Outcomes were compared between the subgroups.

Results: The non-DDBD group was more likely to develop post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis (PEP) and hyperamylasemia (HP) than the DDBD group (P < 0.05). Some cases had mild or moderate pancreatitis, but no one in either group developed severe pancreatitis. For subgroup analysis, each technique resulted in complete stone removal; the EPBD group had a higher HP rate than the other subgroups and reached statistical significance: the EPBD group versus the small EST group (P = 0.013) and the EPBD group versus the EPBD plus small EST group (P = 0.008). Although there was no statistical significance, PEP incidence in the EPBD group was 13.7% higher than in other subgroups (P > 0.05/3).

Conclusion: Non-DDBD patients have a higher risk for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography-related pancreatic inflammation. EPBD should be used cautiously due to the significant association with increased rates of PEP and HP. Conversely, small EST and combination therapy are suitable for non-dilated bile duct stones because of their high safety profile and efficacy.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.00
自引率
10.00%
发文量
103
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Surgical Laparoscopy Endoscopy & Percutaneous Techniques is a primary source for peer-reviewed, original articles on the newest techniques and applications in operative laparoscopy and endoscopy. Its Editorial Board includes many of the surgeons who pioneered the use of these revolutionary techniques. The journal provides complete, timely, accurate, practical coverage of laparoscopic and endoscopic techniques and procedures; current clinical and basic science research; preoperative and postoperative patient management; complications in laparoscopic and endoscopic surgery; and new developments in instrumentation and technology.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信