Feasibility of a novel 5F plastic stent in endoscopic transpapillary gallbladder drainage for acute cholecystitis.

IF 2.3 Q3 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY Endoscopy International Open Pub Date : 2025-01-07 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1055/a-2465-7130
Kazunari Nakahara, Yosuke Igarashi, Akihiro Sekine, Yusuke Satta, Haruka Niwa, Junya Sato, Shinjiro Kobayashi, Takehito Otsubo, Keisuke Tateishi
{"title":"Feasibility of a novel 5F plastic stent in endoscopic transpapillary gallbladder drainage for acute cholecystitis.","authors":"Kazunari Nakahara, Yosuke Igarashi, Akihiro Sekine, Yusuke Satta, Haruka Niwa, Junya Sato, Shinjiro Kobayashi, Takehito Otsubo, Keisuke Tateishi","doi":"10.1055/a-2465-7130","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and study aims: </strong>Many reports have demonstrated the efficacy of endoscopic transpapillary gallbladder stenting (EGBS) for acute cholecystitis (AC), most of which have traditionally used a 7F plastic stent. The study aim was to evaluate the efficacy of a novel 5F plastic stent in EGBS for AC.</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>We designed a retrospective study that compared the outcomes between 7F and 5F stents in patients undergoing EGBS. Among 147 patients who underwent endoscopic transpapillary gallbladder drainage for AC between January 2019 and July 2023, 104 who underwent EGBS using a 7F (n = 53) or 5F (n = 51) plastic stent were included in the analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The technical success rate for EGBS, clinical success rate for AC, and early adverse events (AEs) rate in the 7F and 5F groups were 92.5% vs 100%, 100% vs 98.0%, and 5.7% vs 3.9%, respectively, with no significant differences. However, only in the 7F group, four patients failed stent insertion and three patients developed postprocedure pancreatitis. Furthermore, incidence of hyperamylasemia was lower in the 5F group (24.5% vs 9.8%, P = 0.047). The late AE rate did not differ significantly between the 7F and 5F groups (14.3% vs 10.0%). The median time to late AE was 238 days for the 7F group and 187 days for the 5F group, with no significant difference.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>A 5F stent can provide outcomes comparable to those of a 7F stent and help prevent hyperamylasemia.</p>","PeriodicalId":11671,"journal":{"name":"Endoscopy International Open","volume":"13 ","pages":"a24657130"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11863549/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Endoscopy International Open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2465-7130","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background and study aims: Many reports have demonstrated the efficacy of endoscopic transpapillary gallbladder stenting (EGBS) for acute cholecystitis (AC), most of which have traditionally used a 7F plastic stent. The study aim was to evaluate the efficacy of a novel 5F plastic stent in EGBS for AC.

Patients and methods: We designed a retrospective study that compared the outcomes between 7F and 5F stents in patients undergoing EGBS. Among 147 patients who underwent endoscopic transpapillary gallbladder drainage for AC between January 2019 and July 2023, 104 who underwent EGBS using a 7F (n = 53) or 5F (n = 51) plastic stent were included in the analysis.

Results: The technical success rate for EGBS, clinical success rate for AC, and early adverse events (AEs) rate in the 7F and 5F groups were 92.5% vs 100%, 100% vs 98.0%, and 5.7% vs 3.9%, respectively, with no significant differences. However, only in the 7F group, four patients failed stent insertion and three patients developed postprocedure pancreatitis. Furthermore, incidence of hyperamylasemia was lower in the 5F group (24.5% vs 9.8%, P = 0.047). The late AE rate did not differ significantly between the 7F and 5F groups (14.3% vs 10.0%). The median time to late AE was 238 days for the 7F group and 187 days for the 5F group, with no significant difference.

Conclusions: A 5F stent can provide outcomes comparable to those of a 7F stent and help prevent hyperamylasemia.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
新型 5F 塑料支架用于急性胆囊炎内镜经胆囊引流术的可行性。
背景和研究目的:许多报道证实了内镜下经乳头胆囊支架(EGBS)治疗急性胆囊炎(AC)的疗效,其中大多数传统上使用7F塑料支架。研究目的是评估一种新型5F塑料支架在EGBS中治疗ac的疗效。患者和方法:我们设计了一项回顾性研究,比较7F和5F支架在EGBS患者中的效果。在2019年1月至2023年7月期间,147例接受经乳头胆囊内镜引流治疗AC的患者中,有104例使用7F (n = 53)或5F (n = 51)塑料支架接受EGBS。结果:7F组和5F组EGBS的技术成功率、AC的临床成功率和早期不良事件(ae)率分别为92.5% vs 100%、100% vs 98.0%、5.7% vs 3.9%,差异无统计学意义。然而,仅在7F组中,4例患者支架置入失败,3例患者发生术后胰腺炎。此外,5F组的高淀粉酶血症发生率较低(24.5% vs 9.8%, P = 0.047)。晚期AE发生率在7F组和5F组之间无显著差异(14.3% vs 10.0%)。7F组至晚期AE的中位时间为238天,5F组为187天,差异无统计学意义。结论:5F支架可以提供与7F支架相当的结果,并有助于预防高淀粉酶血症。
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 去求助
来源期刊
Endoscopy International Open
Endoscopy International Open GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY-
自引率
3.80%
发文量
270
期刊最新文献
Is size, morphology, site, and access scoring system consistent between endoscopists? Interobserver and intraobserver polyp assessment study. Lymph node metastases in early gastric cancer: Japanese Gastric Cancer Treatment Guidelines can be used for endoscopic resection in the West. Endoscopic stricturotomy for axis-related gastric outlet obstruction following sleeve gastrectomy. Search, coagulation, and clipping with the shrink method to minimize ulcer base and prevent delayed bleeding after gastric endoscopic resection. Biliary stents reshape the bile microbiome in the absence of cholangitis.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1