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":"2025-04-01","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.

内镜下乳头状球囊扩张与内镜下小括约肌切开术治疗未扩张的远端胆管患者的内镜逆行胆管造影相关不良事件。
目的:内镜下乳头状球囊扩张术(EPBD)、内镜下小括约肌切开术(EST)、小括约肌切开术联合EPBD是胆管结石切除术常用的抢救技术。然而,我们经常遇到具有挑战性的远端胆管未扩张的病例,特别是那些接受EPBD的病例。我们的目的是通过评估没有胆管扩张的患者早期并发症的风险是否更高以及是否受到抢救技术的影响来探讨原因。方法:采用频率匹配设计对2016年7月至2022年6月诊断为非扩张胆管远端结石并接受抢救技术的患者进行回顾性队列研究。此外,根据所采用的抢救技术将合并结石且未发生远端胆管扩张的患者分为3个亚组。比较亚组间的结果。结果:与DDBD组相比,非DDBD组更容易发生内镜后逆行胆管胰腺炎(PEP)和高淀粉酶血症(HP) (P < 0.05)。一些病例有轻度或中度胰腺炎,但两组均未发生严重胰腺炎。对于亚组分析,每种技术都能完全去除结石;EPBD组HP发生率高于其他亚组,EPBD组与小EST组比较(P = 0.013), EPBD组与EPBD +小EST组比较(P = 0.008),差异均有统计学意义。虽然无统计学意义,但EPBD组PEP发生率较其他亚组高13.7% (P < 0.05/3)。结论:非ddbd患者发生内镜逆行胰胆管造影相关胰腺炎症的风险较高。EPBD应谨慎使用,因为它与PEP和HP的增加率有显著的关联。相反,小EST和联合治疗适合于非扩张性胆管结石,因为它们具有较高的安全性和有效性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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