首页> 外文期刊>Digestive endoscopy: official journal of the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society >Multicenter study on endoscopic ultrasound-guided expandable biliary metal stent placement: Choice of access route, direction of stent insertion, and drainage route
【24h】

Multicenter study on endoscopic ultrasound-guided expandable biliary metal stent placement: Choice of access route, direction of stent insertion, and drainage route

机译:内窥镜超声引导下可扩张胆管金属支架置入的多中心研究:进入路径,支架插入方向和引流路径的选择

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

Background and Aim Endoscopic ultrasonography-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) using expandable biliary metal stents has emerged as an acceptable alternative in patients with failed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography for malignant biliary obstruction. However, there is no consensus over the preferred access route (transhepatic or extrahepatic), direction of stent insertion (antegrade or retrograde) or drainage route (transluminal or transpapillary) in patients potentially suitable for multiple methods. The present study compares success and complication rates in patients undergoing EUS-BD via different methods. Methods This was a multicenter retrospective analysis. Records of patients who underwent EUS-BD for malignant obstructive jaundice at four centers were entered in a standard database. Success and complications were compared for different techniques. Results Sixty-eight patients were analyzed. EUS-BD was successful in 65 patients (95.6%). There was no significant difference in the success rates of different techniques. Complications wereseen in 14 patients (20.6%) and mortality in three patients (4.4%). Complications were significantly higher for the transhepatic route compared to the transduodenal route (30.5% vs 9.3%, P=0.03). There was no significant difference in complication rates among transluminal and transpapillary stent placements, or direct and rendezvous stenting. Logistic regression analysis showed transhepatic access to be the only independent risk factor for complications (P=0.031, t=2.2). Conclusion EUS-BD can be carried out with high success rates regardless of the choice of access route, stent direction or drainage route. However, complications are significantly higher with transhepatic access. The transduodenal route should be chosen for EUS-guided and rendezvous stent placements, when both routes are available.
机译:背景和目的对于因恶性胆道梗阻而内镜逆行胰胆管造影术失败的患者,使用可扩张胆管金属支架的内镜超声引导胆管引流术(EUS-BD)已经成为一种可接受的替代方法。但是,对于可能适用于多种方法的患者,首选的进入途径(肝或肝外),支架插入方向(顺行或逆行)或引流途径(经腔或经乳头)尚无共识。本研究比较了通过不同方法接受EUS-BD的患者的成功率和并发症发生率。方法这是一项多中心回顾性分析。在标准数据库中输入了在四个中心接受EUS-BD的恶性阻塞性黄疸患者的病历。比较了不同技术的成功率和并发症。结果对68例患者进行了分析。 EUS-BD在65例患者中成功(95.6%)。不同技术的成功率没有显着差异。 14例患者发生并发症(20.6%),三例患者死亡(4.4%)。与经十二指肠途径相比,经肝途径的并发症显着更高(30.5%vs 9.3%,P = 0.03)。经腔和经乳头支架置入,直接或会合支架置入之间的并发症发生率无显着差异。 Logistic回归分析表明,经肝入路是发生并发症的唯一独立危险因素(P = 0.031,t = 2.2)。结论无论选择何种入路,支架方向或引流路径,EUS-BD均可成功实施。然而,经肝进入的并发症明显更高。当两种途径均可用时,应选择经十二指肠的路径进行EUS引导和会合支架的放置。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号