复杂胆管瘤独家内窥镜引流术与经腔镜和经乳头支架置入术的评估。

IF 2.2 Q3 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY Endoscopy International Open Pub Date : 2024-02-28 eCollection Date: 2024-02-01 DOI:10.1055/a-2261-3137
Jun Sakamoto, Takeshi Ogura, Saori Ueno, Atsushi Okuda, Nobu Nishioka, Akitoshi Hakoda, Yuki Uba, Mitsuki Tomita, Nobuhiro Hattori, Junichi Nakamura, Kimi Bessho, Hiroki Nishikawa
{"title":"复杂胆管瘤独家内窥镜引流术与经腔镜和经乳头支架置入术的评估。","authors":"Jun Sakamoto, Takeshi Ogura, Saori Ueno, Atsushi Okuda, Nobu Nishioka, Akitoshi Hakoda, Yuki Uba, Mitsuki Tomita, Nobuhiro Hattori, Junichi Nakamura, Kimi Bessho, Hiroki Nishikawa","doi":"10.1055/a-2261-3137","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background and study aims</b> Biloma is treated endoscopically with endoscopic retrograde cholangiography (ERCP) or endoscopi ultrasound-guided transluminal biloma drainage (EUS-TBD). However, almost all previous studies have used both internal and external drainage. External drainage has the disadvantages of poor cosmetic appearance and self-tube removal. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the internal endoscopic drainage for complex biloma after hepatobiliary surgery with an ERCP- or EUS-guided approach, without external drainage. <b>Patients and methods</b> This retrospective study included consecutive patients who had bilomas. A 7F plastic stent was deployed from the biloma to the duodenum in the ERCP group and the metal stent was deployed from the biloma to the stomach in the EUS-TBD group. <b>Results</b> Forty-seven patients were enrolled. The technical success rate was similar between the groups (ERCP 94% vs EUS-TBD 100%, <i>P</i> =0.371); however, mean procedure time was significantly shorter in the EUS-TBD group (16.9 minutes) than in the ERCP group (26.6 minutes) ( <i>P</i> =0.009). The clinical success rate was 87% (25 of 32 patients) in the ERCP group and 84% (11 of 13 patients) in the EUS-TBD group ( <i>P</i> =0.482). The duration of median hospital stay was significantly shorter in the EUS-TBD group (22 days) than in the ERCP group (46 days) ( <i>P</i> =0.038). There was no significant difference in procedure-associated adverse events between the groups. <b>Conclusions</b> In conclusion, ERCP and EUS-TBD are complementary techniques, each with its own merits in specific clinical scenarios. If both techniques can be performed, EUS-TBD should be considered because of the short times for the procedure, hospital stay. and biloma resolution.</p>","PeriodicalId":11671,"journal":{"name":"Endoscopy International Open","volume":"12 2","pages":"E262-E268"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10901647/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluation of exclusive internal endoscopic drainage for complex biloma with transluminal and transpapillary stenting.\",\"authors\":\"Jun Sakamoto, Takeshi Ogura, Saori Ueno, Atsushi Okuda, Nobu Nishioka, Akitoshi Hakoda, Yuki Uba, Mitsuki Tomita, Nobuhiro Hattori, Junichi Nakamura, Kimi Bessho, Hiroki Nishikawa\",\"doi\":\"10.1055/a-2261-3137\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b>Background and study aims</b> Biloma is treated endoscopically with endoscopic retrograde cholangiography (ERCP) or endoscopi ultrasound-guided transluminal biloma drainage (EUS-TBD). However, almost all previous studies have used both internal and external drainage. External drainage has the disadvantages of poor cosmetic appearance and self-tube removal. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the internal endoscopic drainage for complex biloma after hepatobiliary surgery with an ERCP- or EUS-guided approach, without external drainage. <b>Patients and methods</b> This retrospective study included consecutive patients who had bilomas. A 7F plastic stent was deployed from the biloma to the duodenum in the ERCP group and the metal stent was deployed from the biloma to the stomach in the EUS-TBD group. <b>Results</b> Forty-seven patients were enrolled. The technical success rate was similar between the groups (ERCP 94% vs EUS-TBD 100%, <i>P</i> =0.371); however, mean procedure time was significantly shorter in the EUS-TBD group (16.9 minutes) than in the ERCP group (26.6 minutes) ( <i>P</i> =0.009). The clinical success rate was 87% (25 of 32 patients) in the ERCP group and 84% (11 of 13 patients) in the EUS-TBD group ( <i>P</i> =0.482). The duration of median hospital stay was significantly shorter in the EUS-TBD group (22 days) than in the ERCP group (46 days) ( <i>P</i> =0.038). There was no significant difference in procedure-associated adverse events between the groups. <b>Conclusions</b> In conclusion, ERCP and EUS-TBD are complementary techniques, each with its own merits in specific clinical scenarios. If both techniques can be performed, EUS-TBD should be considered because of the short times for the procedure, hospital stay. and biloma resolution.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11671,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Endoscopy International Open\",\"volume\":\"12 2\",\"pages\":\"E262-E268\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10901647/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Endoscopy International Open\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2261-3137\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/2/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Endoscopy International Open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2261-3137","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/2/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景和研究目的 胆脂瘤可通过内镜逆行胆管造影术(ERCP)或内镜超声引导下胆脂瘤腔内引流术(EUS-TBD)进行治疗。然而,以往几乎所有的研究都采用了内引流和外引流两种方法。外引流的缺点是外观不美,而且需要自行拔管。本研究的目的是评估在ERCP或EUS引导下采用内镜内引流术治疗肝胆手术后复杂胆管瘤,而不采用外引流术的效果。患者和方法 这项回顾性研究包括连续的胆管瘤患者。ERCP 组从胆管瘤到十二指肠植入 7F 塑料支架,EUS-TBD 组从胆管瘤到胃植入金属支架。结果 47例患者入选。两组的技术成功率相似(ERCP 94% vs EUS-TBD 100%,P =0.371);但 EUS-TBD 组的平均手术时间(16.9 分钟)明显短于 ERCP 组(26.6 分钟)(P =0.009)。ERCP组的临床成功率为87%(32名患者中有25名成功),EUS-TBD组的临床成功率为84%(13名患者中有11名成功)(P =0.482)。EUS-TBD 组的中位住院时间(22 天)明显短于 ERCP 组(46 天)(P =0.038)。两组在手术相关不良事件方面无明显差异。结论 总之,ERCP 和 EUS-TBD 是互补的技术,在特定的临床情况下各有千秋。如果两种技术都能进行,则应考虑 EUS-TBD,因为其手术时间短、住院时间短、胆汁瘤消退时间短。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Evaluation of exclusive internal endoscopic drainage for complex biloma with transluminal and transpapillary stenting.

Background and study aims Biloma is treated endoscopically with endoscopic retrograde cholangiography (ERCP) or endoscopi ultrasound-guided transluminal biloma drainage (EUS-TBD). However, almost all previous studies have used both internal and external drainage. External drainage has the disadvantages of poor cosmetic appearance and self-tube removal. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the internal endoscopic drainage for complex biloma after hepatobiliary surgery with an ERCP- or EUS-guided approach, without external drainage. Patients and methods This retrospective study included consecutive patients who had bilomas. A 7F plastic stent was deployed from the biloma to the duodenum in the ERCP group and the metal stent was deployed from the biloma to the stomach in the EUS-TBD group. Results Forty-seven patients were enrolled. The technical success rate was similar between the groups (ERCP 94% vs EUS-TBD 100%, P =0.371); however, mean procedure time was significantly shorter in the EUS-TBD group (16.9 minutes) than in the ERCP group (26.6 minutes) ( P =0.009). The clinical success rate was 87% (25 of 32 patients) in the ERCP group and 84% (11 of 13 patients) in the EUS-TBD group ( P =0.482). The duration of median hospital stay was significantly shorter in the EUS-TBD group (22 days) than in the ERCP group (46 days) ( P =0.038). There was no significant difference in procedure-associated adverse events between the groups. Conclusions In conclusion, ERCP and EUS-TBD are complementary techniques, each with its own merits in specific clinical scenarios. If both techniques can be performed, EUS-TBD should be considered because of the short times for the procedure, hospital stay. and biloma resolution.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 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
New cholangiopancreatoscopy-assisted diagnosis of disconnected pancreatic cuct syndrome and bridging disconnected pancreatic duct. Colonoscopy is not mammography: Challenges of applying the Duty of Candor. Complete extraction of main pancreatic duct residual and microstones using an 8-wire basket catheter. Costs and benefits of a formal quality framework for colonoscopy: Economic evaluation. Defining standards for fluoroscopy in gastrointestinal endoscopy using Delphi methodology.
×
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:481959085
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