Literature DB >> 9647366

Endoscopic ultrasonography versus cholangiography for the diagnosis of choledocholithiasis.

M I Canto1, A Chak, T Stellato, M V Sivak.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Choledocholithiasis is a major source of morbidity among patients undergoing cholecystectomy for symptomatic gallstones. There is no consensus on the best approach to diagnosing bile duct stones. We compared the safety, accuracy, diagnostic yield, and cost of EUS- and ERCP-based approaches.
METHODS: Sixty-four consecutive pre- and post-cholecystectomy patients referred for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) for suspected choledocholithiasis were prospectively evaluated in a blinded fashion. All were stratified into risk groups using predefined criteria. Endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) and ERCP were sequentially performed by two endoscopists.
RESULTS: The success rates of EUS and ERCP were 98% and 94%, respectively. The accuracy of EUS for diagnosing choledocholithiasis was 94%. EUS provided an additional or alternative diagnosis to bile duct stones in 21% of patients. The complication rate of EUS was significantly lower than diagnostic ERCP. An EUS-based strategy costs less than diagnostic ERCP in patients with low, moderate, or intermediate risk.
CONCLUSIONS: EUS is comparably accurate, but safer and less costly than ERCP for evaluating patients with suspected choledocholithiasis. It is useful in patients with an increased risk of having common bile duct stones based on clinical criteria and those with contraindications for or prior unsuccessful ERCP. EUS may enable selective performance of ERCP and improve the cost-effectiveness of diagnosing choledocholithiasis.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1998        PMID: 9647366     DOI: 10.1016/s0016-5107(98)70242-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc        ISSN: 0016-5107            Impact factor:   9.427


  34 in total

1.  Helical computed tomographic cholangiography versus endosonography for suspected bile duct stones: a prospective blinded study in non-jaundiced patients.

Authors:  M Polkowski; J Palucki; J Regula; A Tilszer; E Butruk
Journal:  Gut       Date:  1999-11       Impact factor: 23.059

Review 2.  Endoscopic ultrasonography in acute biliary pancreatitis.

Authors:  T Rösch; P Mayr; M A Kassem
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2001 May-Jun       Impact factor: 3.452

3.  Successful treatment of immune thrombocytopenic purpura (ITP) with splenectomy.

Authors:  P Ortega Deballon; M T Alonso García; M Moreno Azcoita
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2001-02       Impact factor: 3.352

Review 4.  Interventional endoscopic ultrasound in pancreatic disease.

Authors:  Ali Fazel; Peter Draganov
Journal:  Curr Gastroenterol Rep       Date:  2004-04

5.  UK guidelines for the management of acute pancreatitis.

Authors: 
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2005-05       Impact factor: 23.059

6.  Usefulness of endoscopic ultrasound in patients at high risk of choledocholithiasis.

Authors:  George Dittrick; Jeffrey P Lamont; Joseph A Kuhn; Damien Mallat
Journal:  Proc (Bayl Univ Med Cent)       Date:  2005-07

7.  Postprocedural interpretation of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography by radiology.

Authors:  Nitin Khanna; Gary May; Sydney Bass; Marty Cole; Joseph Romagnuolo
Journal:  Can J Gastroenterol       Date:  2008-01       Impact factor: 3.522

8.  Dynamic liver test patterns do not predict bile duct stones.

Authors:  Chung Yao Yu; Nitzan Roth; Niraj Jani; Jaehoon Cho; Jacques Van Dam; Rick Selby; James Buxbaum
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2019-03-25       Impact factor: 4.584

9.  Extraintestinal Applications of Endoscopic Ultrasound.

Authors:  Rayburn Rego
Journal:  Gastroenterol Hepatol (N Y)       Date:  2006-04

10.  Efficacy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided drainage of pancreatic pseudocysts in a pediatric population.

Authors:  Saad F Jazrawi; Bradley A Barth; Jayaprakash Sreenarasimhaiah
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2010-07-30       Impact factor: 3.199

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.