Cholangioscopy-guided lithotripsy versus mechanical lithotripsy for large common bile duct stones during balloon enteroscopy-assisted ERCP after gastrectomy with a native papilla.

IF 11.8 1区 医学 Q1 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY
Endoscopy Pub Date : 2026-10-08 DOI:10.1055/a-2975-5309
Tadahisa Inoue, Akinori Maruta, Yuhei Iwasa, Naoki Mita, Toji Murabayashi, Hiroshi Mori, Yumi Murashima, Rena Kitano, Hironao Ichikawa, Shinya Uemura, Keisuke Iwata, Masanao Nakamura, Kiyoaki Ito
{"title":"Cholangioscopy-guided lithotripsy versus mechanical lithotripsy for large common bile duct stones during balloon enteroscopy-assisted ERCP after gastrectomy with a native papilla.","authors":"Tadahisa Inoue, Akinori Maruta, Yuhei Iwasa, Naoki Mita, Toji Murabayashi, Hiroshi Mori, Yumi Murashima, Rena Kitano, Hironao Ichikawa, Shinya Uemura, Keisuke Iwata, Masanao Nakamura, Kiyoaki Ito","doi":"10.1055/a-2975-5309","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Balloon enteroscopy-assisted ERCP (BE-ERCP) for large common bile duct stones in patients with surgically altered anatomy (SAA) remains challenging. Mechanical lithotripsy (ML) is commonly used, but stone capture and fragmentation can often be difficult. This study evaluated the usefulness of a peroral cholangioscopy-guided lithotripsy (POCL)-first strategy compared with a conventional ML-first strategy.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study used a registry of patients with large common bile duct stones and SAA after gastrectomy in whom BE-ERCP was performed at seven institutions in Japan. From this registry, patients treated with an ML-first or POCL-first strategy were included. Outcomes were compared between patients treated with a POCL-first strategy and those treated with an ML-first strategy. The primary outcome was complete stone clearance during the initial session.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 104 patients were analyzed: 39 in the POCL-first group and 65 in the ML-first group. Complete stone clearance during the initial session was achieved in 95% of the POCL-first group and 62% of the ML-first group (risk difference, 33.3%; 95% CI, 17.3-46.0%). POCL-first was associated with fewer patients requiring ≥2 sessions among those achieving final clearance (5% vs 32%; risk difference, -27.1%; 95% CI, -40.3 to -11.3). Adverse event rates did not differ significantly. After adjustment, POCL-first was associated with a higher probability of initial-session complete stone clearance (adjusted risk ratio, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.08-1.83).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In this retrospective cohort of postgastrectomy patients with an accessible native papilla, a POCL-first strategy during BE-ERCP was associated with higher initial-session complete stone clearance, supporting prospective evaluation.</p>","PeriodicalId":11516,"journal":{"name":"Endoscopy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":11.8000,"publicationDate":"2026-10-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Endoscopy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2975-5309","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Balloon enteroscopy-assisted ERCP (BE-ERCP) for large common bile duct stones in patients with surgically altered anatomy (SAA) remains challenging. Mechanical lithotripsy (ML) is commonly used, but stone capture and fragmentation can often be difficult. This study evaluated the usefulness of a peroral cholangioscopy-guided lithotripsy (POCL)-first strategy compared with a conventional ML-first strategy.

Methods: This study used a registry of patients with large common bile duct stones and SAA after gastrectomy in whom BE-ERCP was performed at seven institutions in Japan. From this registry, patients treated with an ML-first or POCL-first strategy were included. Outcomes were compared between patients treated with a POCL-first strategy and those treated with an ML-first strategy. The primary outcome was complete stone clearance during the initial session.

Results: A total of 104 patients were analyzed: 39 in the POCL-first group and 65 in the ML-first group. Complete stone clearance during the initial session was achieved in 95% of the POCL-first group and 62% of the ML-first group (risk difference, 33.3%; 95% CI, 17.3-46.0%). POCL-first was associated with fewer patients requiring ≥2 sessions among those achieving final clearance (5% vs 32%; risk difference, -27.1%; 95% CI, -40.3 to -11.3). Adverse event rates did not differ significantly. After adjustment, POCL-first was associated with a higher probability of initial-session complete stone clearance (adjusted risk ratio, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.08-1.83).

Conclusions: In this retrospective cohort of postgastrectomy patients with an accessible native papilla, a POCL-first strategy during BE-ERCP was associated with higher initial-session complete stone clearance, supporting prospective evaluation.

胆道镜引导下的碎石术与机械碎石术在有原生乳头的胃切除术后球囊肠镜辅助ERCP中的大胆总管结石。
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
Endoscopy
Endoscopy 医学-外科
CiteScore
5.80
自引率
11.80%
发文量
1401
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: Endoscopy is a leading journal covering the latest technologies and global advancements in gastrointestinal endoscopy. With guidance from an international editorial board, it delivers high-quality content catering to the needs of endoscopists, surgeons, clinicians, and researchers worldwide. Publishing 12 issues each year, Endoscopy offers top-quality review articles, original contributions, prospective studies, surveys of diagnostic and therapeutic advances, and comprehensive coverage of key national and international meetings. Additionally, articles often include supplementary online video content.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书