Indian Survey on Management of Choledocholithiasis—Opportunities for Improvement and Future Studies

IF 0.4 Q4 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY
N. Jagtap, Sudatta B Waghmare, S. Sundaram, Rohan Khairatkar, S. Modak, S. Lakhtakia, M. Tandan, G. Rao, D. Reddy
{"title":"Indian Survey on Management of Choledocholithiasis—Opportunities for Improvement and Future Studies","authors":"N. Jagtap, Sudatta B Waghmare, S. Sundaram, Rohan Khairatkar, S. Modak, S. Lakhtakia, M. Tandan, G. Rao, D. Reddy","doi":"10.1055/s-0042-1758533","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Background  In clinical practice, decision about management of choledocholithiasis is driven by availability of resources and expertise, patients and healthcare professional preferences. This survey is aimed to describe the approach of physicians and surgeons for the management of choledocholithiasis. Method  A 36-question online survey was conducted using Google Forms on various aspects of management of choledocholithiasis. Results  The responses from 323 participants were included, of which 202 (62.54%) were physicians and 121 (37.46%) were surgeons. The proportion of responders who do not follow American or European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guidelines is associated with increasing age and experience of responders ( p  = 0.0001), while place of work (private vs. teaching) and broad specialty (physician vs surgeon) are not associated ( p >0.05). For patients with high likelihood of choledocholithiasis, 123 (38.1%) participants prefer to do endoscopic ultrasound/magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (EUS/MRCP) rather than directly performing endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography/intraoperative cholangiography (ERCP/IOC). For intermediate likelihood, MRCP is more commonly preferred compared with EUS, due to local availability (44%), expertise (39.6%), healthcare professionals preference (30.7%), and patients preference (17.3%). For difficult common bile duct (CBD) stones, short biliary sphincterotomy with large balloon sphincteroplasty (59.4%), followed by laparoscopic CBD exploration are commonly used approaches. Prophylactic CBD stent placement after ERCP and CBD clearance is common practice. Preoperative ERCP followed by cholecystectomy is more preferred approach than cholecystectomy and CBD exploration. Conclusion  There is considerable variability in the management of choledocholithiasis. The practices such as use of EUS/MRCP for high likelihood group, use of prophylactic CBD stent placement after ERCP and CBD clearance, and use of single stage approach especially in patient with intermediate likelihood group should be addressed in future studies.","PeriodicalId":43098,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Digestive Endoscopy","volume":"13 1","pages":"224 - 228"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Digestive Endoscopy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0042-1758533","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract Background  In clinical practice, decision about management of choledocholithiasis is driven by availability of resources and expertise, patients and healthcare professional preferences. This survey is aimed to describe the approach of physicians and surgeons for the management of choledocholithiasis. Method  A 36-question online survey was conducted using Google Forms on various aspects of management of choledocholithiasis. Results  The responses from 323 participants were included, of which 202 (62.54%) were physicians and 121 (37.46%) were surgeons. The proportion of responders who do not follow American or European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guidelines is associated with increasing age and experience of responders ( p  = 0.0001), while place of work (private vs. teaching) and broad specialty (physician vs surgeon) are not associated ( p >0.05). For patients with high likelihood of choledocholithiasis, 123 (38.1%) participants prefer to do endoscopic ultrasound/magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (EUS/MRCP) rather than directly performing endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography/intraoperative cholangiography (ERCP/IOC). For intermediate likelihood, MRCP is more commonly preferred compared with EUS, due to local availability (44%), expertise (39.6%), healthcare professionals preference (30.7%), and patients preference (17.3%). For difficult common bile duct (CBD) stones, short biliary sphincterotomy with large balloon sphincteroplasty (59.4%), followed by laparoscopic CBD exploration are commonly used approaches. Prophylactic CBD stent placement after ERCP and CBD clearance is common practice. Preoperative ERCP followed by cholecystectomy is more preferred approach than cholecystectomy and CBD exploration. Conclusion  There is considerable variability in the management of choledocholithiasis. The practices such as use of EUS/MRCP for high likelihood group, use of prophylactic CBD stent placement after ERCP and CBD clearance, and use of single stage approach especially in patient with intermediate likelihood group should be addressed in future studies.
印度胆总管结石管理调查-改进的机会和未来的研究
摘要背景在临床实践中,胆总管结石的治疗决策受资源和专业知识的可用性、患者和医疗保健专业人员的偏好驱动。这项调查的目的是描述的方法的内科医生和外科医生的胆总管结石的管理。方法采用谷歌表格对胆总管结石的管理进行36题的在线调查。结果共纳入问卷323人,其中内科医生202人(62.54%),外科医生121人(37.46%)。不遵循美国或欧洲胃肠内窥镜学会指南的应答者比例与应答者年龄和经验的增加有关(p = 0.0001),而工作地点(私人与教学)和广泛的专业(内科医生与外科医生)无关(p >0.05)。对于胆总管结石的高可能性患者,123名(38.1%)参与者更倾向于内镜下超声/磁共振胆管造影(EUS/MRCP),而不是直接进行内镜下逆行胆管造影/术中胆管造影(ERCP/IOC)。对于中等可能性,MRCP比EUS更受欢迎,因为当地可用性(44%)、专业知识(39.6%)、医疗保健专业人员偏好(30.7%)和患者偏好(17.3%)。对于难治性胆总管结石,常采用短段胆道括约肌切开术联合大球囊括约肌成形术(59.4%),再行腹腔镜下胆总管探查。在ERCP和CBD清除后预防性放置CBD支架是常见的做法。术前ERCP加胆囊切除术优于胆囊切除术加CBD探查。结论胆总管结石的治疗存在很大差异。对于高似然组使用EUS/MRCP,在ERCP和CBD清除后使用预防性CBD支架,特别是在中似然组患者使用单期入路等做法,应在未来的研究中加以解决。
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
Journal of Digestive Endoscopy
Journal of Digestive Endoscopy GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY-
自引率
28.60%
发文量
35
审稿时长
22 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Digestive Endoscopy (JDE) is the official publication of the Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy of India that has over 1500 members. The society comprises of several key clinicians in this field from different parts of the country and has key international speakers in its advisory board. JDE is a double-blinded peer-reviewed, print and online journal publishing quarterly. It focuses on original investigations, reviews, case reports and clinical images as well as key investigations including but not limited to cholangiopancreatography, fluoroscopy, capsule endoscopy etc.
×
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