| Literature DB >> 32363172 |
Linlin Zhu1, Jing Xiong1, Zhibao Lv1, Jiangbin Liu1, Xiong Huang1, Weijue Xu1.
Abstract
Background: Perforation of a choledochal cyst (CC) is not rare, but the pathogenesis of spontaneous perforation has not been established. Pancreaticobiliary maljunction (PBM) is commonly seen in association with choledochal cyst. To explore the relationship between PBM and perforated CC, a retrospective study was conducted.Entities:
Keywords: choledochal cyst; congenital biliary dilatation (CBD); pancreaticobiliary maljunction (PBM); pediatric; perforation
Year: 2020 PMID: 32363172 PMCID: PMC7181898 DOI: 10.3389/fped.2020.00168
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Pediatr ISSN: 2296-2360 Impact factor: 3.418
Figure 1Study profile 70 patients who could not be found clear PBM images either in MRCP nor in IOCP were excluded.
Figure 3Todani's classification of choledochal cyst.
Demographics of children with pancreaticobiliary maljunction.
| Gender | 0.84 | |||
| Male | 5 (25%) | 22 (22.9%) | 27 (23.3%) | |
| Female | 15 (75%) | 74 (77.1%) | 89 (76.7%) | |
| Age at operation (range) | 3.3 y (9 m−7 y) | 3.8 y (1 m−13 y) | 3.7 y (1 m−13 y) | 0.45 |
| Clinical features | <0.01 | |||
| Prenatal diagnosis | 0 | 17 (17.7%) | 17 (14.7%) | 0.09 |
| Abdominal pain | 13 (65%) | 51 (53.1%) | 64 (55.2%) | 0.33 |
| Vomiting | 16 (80%) | 35 (36.5%) | 51 (44.0%) | 0.00 |
| Abdominal mass | 0 | 3 (3.1%) | 3 (2.6%) | 1.00 |
| Jaundice | 2 (10%) | 28 (29.2%) | 30 (25.9%) | 0.07 |
| Laboratory findings | ||||
| Serum amylase, U/L (IQR) | 178.8 (26–1,219) | 278.3 (2–1,830) | 263.1 (2–1,830) | 0.40 |
| Bile amylase, U/L (IQR) | 7,548.7 (10–323,400) | 53,351.1 (1–601,600) | 44,988.7 (1–601,600) | 0.98 |
| Type of common bile duct | 0.33 | |||
| Cystic | 6 (30%) | 40 (41.7%) | 46 (39.7%) | |
| Fusiform | 14 (70%) | 56 (58.3%) | 70 (60.3%) | |
| Bile duct stones | 9 (45%) | 40 (41.7%) | 49 (42.2%) | 0.79 |
In all patients with CC, there were nine cystic cases and 16 fusiform cases in Group 1; in Group 2, there were 97 cystic cases and 64 fusiform cases, P = 0.02. There were significant differences between the two groups.
Types of PBM in Group 1 and Group 2.
| A | 3 (15) | 48 (50) | <0.01 |
| B | 2 (10) | 26 (27.1) | 0.18 |
| C | 12 (60) | 17 (17.7) | 0.00 |
| D | 3 (15) | 5 (5.2) | 0.28 |
| Total | 20 | 96 | <0.01 |
There were more type C PBM in group 1, and more type A PBM in group 2.
Figure 2Different types of PBM. (A) stenotic type, (B) non-stenotic type, (C) dilated channel type, and (D) complex type. The common channel (the red hollow arrow), the pancreatic duct (the yellow hollow arrow), and the dilated bile duct (the green hollow arrow). In the type D PBM, there was a accessory pancreatic duct (the yellow arrow).
Types of PBM in fusiform and cystic cases.
| A | 16 (22.9) | 35 (76.1) | 0.00 |
| B | 22 (31.4) | 6 (13) | 0.02 |
| C | 25 (35.7) | 4 (8.7) | <0.01 |
| D | 7 (10) | 1 (2.2) | 0.21 |
| Total | 70 (100) | 46 (100) | <0.01 |
Fusiform cases contained more type C and B PBMs, while there were more type A PBMs in cystic cases.