| Literature DB >> 31768727 |
Eva-Lena Syrén1,2, Gabriel Sandblom3,4, Staffan Eriksson5,6, Arne Eklund5,6, Bengt Isaksson5, Lars Enochsson7.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Rendezvous endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreaticography (ERCP) is a well-established method for treatment of choledocholithiasis. The primary aim of this study was to determine how different techniques for management of common bile duct stone (CBDS) clearance in patients undergoing cholecystectomy have changed over time at tertiary referral hospitals (TRH) and county/community hospitals (CH). The secondary aim was to see if postoperative rendezvous ERCP is a safe, effective and feasible alternative to intraoperative rendezvous ERCP in the management of CBDS.Entities:
Keywords: Choledocholithiasis; Complications; Rendezvous ERCP
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31768727 PMCID: PMC7572344 DOI: 10.1007/s00464-019-07272-1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Surg Endosc ISSN: 0930-2794 Impact factor: 4.584
Fig. 1Alternative techniques for management of CBDS found at cholecystectomy in Sweden 2006–2016
Fig. 2Frequency of intraoperative ERCP and preparing postoperative ERCP as alternatives to treat CBDS discovered during cholecystectomy at Tertiary Referral Hospitals compared with County and Community Hospitals in Sweden 2006–2016
Fig. 3Flowchart cholecystectomies in Sweden 2006–2016
Fig. 4Flowchart common bile duct stones in Sweden 2006–2016
Demographics of the two groups: intraoperative and preparing postoperative ERCP, ERCP within 30 days
| ERCP | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Intraop n = 2290 | Preparing postop n = 2283 | ||
| Femalesa | |||
| n | |||
| % | 65.2 | 67.3 | |
| Males | |||
| n | |||
| % | 34.8 | 32.7 | |
| Total | |||
| n | 0.1363 | ||
| ASA 1-2 | |||
| n | |||
| % | 90.4 | 92.2 | |
| ASA > 2 | |||
| n | |||
| % | 9.6 | 7.8 | |
| Ageb (years) | |||
| Mean | |||
| SEM | 0.4 | 0.4 | |
Statistically significant values are given in bold
aPearson ChiSquare
bStudent’s t test
Intra- and postoperative complications n (%), ERCP within 30 days
| Intraop ERCP n (%) | Preparing postop n (%) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Intraoperative complications | |||
| Overall | 45 (2.0) | 77 (3.4) | |
| Bleeding | 10 (0.4) | 25 (1.1) | |
| Postoperative complications | |||
| Overall | 357 (15.6) | 497 (21.8) | |
| Bleeding | 28 (1.2) | 20 (0.9) | 0.2501 |
| Pancreatitis | 108 (4.7) | 101 (4.4) | 0.6362 |
| Cholangitis | 14 (0.6) | 21 (0.9) | 0.2314 |
| Bile leakage | 33 (1.4) | 62 (2.7) | |
| Infection with abscess | 43 (1.9) | 67 (2.9) | |
| Percutaneous drainage | 51 (2.2) | 69 (3.0) | 0.0925 |
| Antibiotic treatment | 223 (9.7) | 237 (10.4) | 0.4697 |
| ICU stay | 6 (0.3) | 3 (0.1) | 0.3191 |
| Readmission within 30 days | 15 (0.7) | 6 (0.3) | |
| Reop within 30 days | 46 (2.0) | 48 (2.1) | 0.8232 |
| Mortality 30 days | 7 (0.31) | 1 (0.04) |
Statistically significant values are given in bold
aPearson ChiSquare
Intra- and postoperative complications of preparing for postoperative versus intraoperative ERCP (reference)
| Intraop ERCP ref | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| OR | 95% CI | ||
| Intraoperative complications | |||
| Overall | 1.69 | (1.16–2.45) | |
| Bleeding | 2.46 | (1.17–5.16) | |
| Postoperative complications | |||
| Overall | 1.50 | (1.29–1.75) | |
| Bleeding | 0.72 | (0.40–1.28) | 0.2581 |
| Pancreatitis | 0.95 | (0.72–1.25) | 0.7053 |
| Cholangitis | 1.53 | (0.77–3.02) | 0.2229 |
| Bile leakage | 1.89 | (1.23–2.90) | |
| Infection with abscess | 1.55 | (1.05–2.29) | |
| Percutaneous drainage | 1.34 | (0.93–1.94) | 0.1191 |
| Antibiotic treatment | 1.06 | (0.88–1.29) | 0.5336 |
| ICU stay | 0.51 | (0.13–2.04) | 0.3394 |
| Readmission within 30 days | 0.41 | (0.16–1.07) | 0.0681 |
| Reop within 30 days | 1.05 | (0.70–1.58) | 0.8146 |
| Mortality 30 days | 0.16 | (0.02–1.35) | 0.0927 |
ERCP within 30 days. Multivariate analysis
Adjusted for gender, age and ASA
Statistically significant values are given in bold
Length of stay (days)
| Intraop ERCP | Preparing postop ERCP | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | SEM | Mean | SEM | |
| 4.7 | 0.1 | 5.1 | 0.1 | 0.0454 |