| Literature DB >> 33584068 |
Yan-Yan Lin1, Yu-Dong Wang2, Ping Yue1, Xian-Zhuo Zhang1, Joseph W Leung3, Pan-Pan Jiao4, Man Yang5, Hai-Ping Wang6, Bing Bai1, Ying Liu7, Jin-Duo Zhang1, Hong-Bo Chen8, Wen-Bo Meng1, Xun Li1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A previous study showed that irrigation with 100 mL saline reduced residual common bile duct (CBD) stones, which potentially cause recurrent stones after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. AIM: To determine whether saline irrigation can improve CBD clearance after lithotripsy.Entities:
Keywords: Common bile duct gall stones; Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography; Periampullary diverticula; Peroral cholangioscopy; Prospective cohort study; Saline irrigation
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 33584068 PMCID: PMC7852583 DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v27.i4.358
Source DB: PubMed Journal: World J Gastroenterol ISSN: 1007-9327 Impact factor: 5.742
Figure 1Flow chart of the self-controlled study. CBD: Common bile duct; ERCP: Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography; PTCD: Percutaneous transhepatic cholangiodrainage.
Figure 2SpyGlass DS images and simulation graphs of the residual stone. A-E: SpyGlass DS images (A1-E1) and simulation graphs (A2-E2). Score 1: A large amount of stone fragments and biliary sludge. Score 2: A moderate amount of stone fragments and biliary sludge. Score 3: A small amount of stone fragments and biliary sludge. Score 4: Presence of biliary sludge without any stones. Score 5: Completely cleared common bile duct without any biliary sludge.
Figure 3Protocol of evaluation and irrigation procedures. CBD: Common bile duct; ERCP: Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography; POC: Peroral cholangioscopy.
Clinical and procedural characteristics of the patients
|
|
|
| Age (yr, mean ± SD) | 61 ± 16.5 |
| Male | 23 (48.9%) |
| Stone size (mm) | 14 (14-15) |
| Multiple CBD stones | 36 (76.6%) |
| Diameter of CBD (mm) | 15 (12-18) |
| Gallbladder stones | 21 (44.7%) |
| Previous cholecystectomy | 24 (51.1%) |
| Periampullary diverticulum | 15 (31.9%) |
| Total bilirubin (µmol/L) | 71.1 (64.9-107.9) |
| Comorbidities | |
| Coronary disease | 3 (6.4%) |
| Hypertension | 14 (29.8%) |
| Diabetes | 2 (4.3%) |
| Liver cirrhosis | 3 (2.1%) |
| Portal hypertension | 1 (6.4%) |
| ENBD | 40 (85.1%) |
| Procedure time, min (mean ± SD) | 40.3 ± 15.4 |
| Stone texture | |
| Hard stones | 16 (34.0%) |
| Soft stones | 31 (66.0%) |
| Stone compositions | |
| Cholesterol-based stones | 17 (36.2%) |
| Pigment-based stones | 30 (63.8%) |
| Procedure-related adverse events | |
| Cholangitis | 4 (8.5%) |
| Oozing | 2 (4.3%) |
| Pancreatitis | 4 (8.5%) |
| Cholecystitis | 1 (2.1%) |
| Perforation | 0 |
| Death | 0 |
Data are expressed as the mean ± SD, median (interquartile range) or n (%). ENBD: Endoscopic nasobiliary drainage; CBD: Common bile duct.
Common bile duct clear score and stone clearance rate before and after saline irrigation
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Score 1 | 13 (28%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | |
| Score 2 | 8 (17%) | 4 (8%) | 0 (0%) | |
| Score 3 | 19 (40%) | 15 (32%) | 3 (6%) | |
| Score 4 | 7 (15%) | 28 (60%) | 12 (26%) | |
| Score 5 | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 32 (68%) | |
| Clear | 7 (15%) | 28 (60%) | 44 (94%) | < 0.001 |
Biliary cleanliness before and after saline irrigation, assessed by logistic regression analysis
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Age | ||||||||||
| ≤ 65 yr | 6/27 | 1.00 | 19/27 | 19/27 | 1.00 | - | ||||
| > 65 yr | 7/20 | 1.89 (0.52-6.86) | 0.34 | 13/20 | 13/20 | 0.78 (0.23-2.69) | 0.70 | - | - | |
| Gender | - | |||||||||
| Female | 9/24 | 1.00 | 16/24 | 16/24 | 1.00 | - | ||||
| Male | 4/23 | 0.35 (0.09-1.37) | 0.13 | 16/23 | 0.17 | 16/23 | 1.14 (0.34-3.90) | 0.83 | - | - |
| CBD diameter | ||||||||||
| ≤ 15 mm | 5/32 | 1.00 | 26/32 | 26/32 | 1.00 | 1.00 | ||||
| > 15 mm | 8/15 | 6.17 (1.53-24.84) | 0.01 | 6/15 | 0.034 | 6/15 | 0.15 (0.04-0.60) | 0.007 | 0.08 (0.01-0.49) | 0.007 |
| Stone number | ||||||||||
| Single | 3/11 | 1.00 | 10/11 | 10/11 | 1.00 | 1.00 | ||||
| Multiple | 10/36 | 1.03 (0.23-4.66) | 0.97 | 22/36 | - | 22/36 | 0.16 (0.02-1.37) | 0.09 | 0.08 (0.01-1.09) | 0.06 |
| Stone diameter | ||||||||||
| ≤ 15 mm | 8/36 | 1.00 | 26/36 | 26/36 | 1.00 | - | ||||
| > 15 mm | 5/11 | 2.92 (0.70-12.11) | 0.14 | 6/11 | 0.34 | 6/11 | 0.46 (0.12-1.86) | 0.28 | - | - |
| Pigment-based stones | ||||||||||
| No | 4/17 | 1.00 | 14/17 | 14/17 | 1.00 | 1.00 | ||||
| Yes | 9/30 | 1.39 (0.36-5.46) | 0.63 | 18/30 | - | 18/30 | 0.32 (0.08-1.36) | 0.12 | 0.43 (0.05-3.60) | 0.44 |
| PAD | ||||||||||
| No | 4/15 | 1.00 | 26/32 | 26/32 | 1.00 | 1.00 | ||||
| Yes | 9/32 | 1.08 (0.27-4.28) | 0.92 | 6/15 | - | 6/15 | 6.50 (1.67-25.38) | 0.007 | 6.51 (1.08-39.21) | 0.041 |
N: Total number; CBD: Common bile duct; PAD: Periampullary diverticula; CI: Confidence interval; OR: Odds ratio.
Correlation between the composition of stones and variables
|
|
|
|
|
|
| PAD | ||||
| Yes | 14 (93.3%) | 1 (6.7%) | 8.31 | 0.004 |
| No | 16 (50.0%) | 16 (50.0%) | ||
| Diameter of the CBD | ||||
| ≤ 15 mm | 21 (65.6%) | 11 (34.4%) | 0.14 | 0.75 |
| > 15 mm | 9 (60.0%) | 6 (40.0%) | ||
| Diameter of the stone | ||||
| ≤ 15 mm | 25 (69.4%) | 11 (30.6%) | 2.10 | 0.17 |
| > 15 mm | 5 (45.5%) | 6 (54.5%) | ||
| Stone texture | ||||
| Hard | 6 (37.5%) | 10 (62.5%) | 7.28 | 0.01 |
| Soft | 24 (77.4%) | 7 (22.6%) |
CBD: Common bile duct; PAD: Periampullary diverticula.