...
首页> 外文期刊>Endoscopy: Journal for Clinical Use Biopsy and Technique >Digital cholangioscopy-guided laser versus mechanical lithotripsy for large bile duct stone removal after failed papillary large-balloon dilation: a randomized study
【24h】

Digital cholangioscopy-guided laser versus mechanical lithotripsy for large bile duct stone removal after failed papillary large-balloon dilation: a randomized study

机译:数字胆管视网膜透视引导激光与机械碎石,用于大胆管石头去除乳头状大球囊扩张后失败:随机研究

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Background Endoscopic papillary large-balloon dilation (EPLBD) allows for the complete removal of large common bile duct (CBD) stones without fragmentation; however, a significant proportion of very large stones and stones floating above a tapering CBD require lithotripsy. Mechanical lithotripsy and cholangioscopy-guided laser lithotripsy are both effective for stone fragmentation. This study aimed to directly compare, for the first time, the efficacy of these two techniques in terms of stone clearance rate, procedure duration, patient radiation exposure, and safety. Methods 32 patients with very large CBD stones or with stones floating above a tapering CBD, and in whom extraction after standard sphincterotomy and/or EPLBD had failed, were randomly assigned to mechanical lithotripsy or cholangioscopy-guided laser lithotripsy at two tertiary referral centers. Crossover was allowed as a rescue treatment if the assigned technique failed. Results Patients' demographic data were not different between the two groups. Mechanical lithotripsy had a significantly lower stone clearance rate in the first session compared with laser lithotripsy (63% vs. 100%; P < 0.01). Laser lithotripsy rescued 60% of patients with failed mechanical lithotripsy by achieving complete stone clearance within the same session. Radiation exposure of patients was significantly higher in the mechanical lithotripsy group than in the laser lithotripsy group (40 745 vs. 20 989 mGycm (2) ; P = 0.04). Adverse events (13% vs. 6%; P = 0.76) and length of hospital stay (1 vs. 1 day; P = 0.27) were not different. Conclusions Although mechanical lithotripsy is the standard of care for a very large CBD stone after failed EPLBD, where available, cholangioscopy-guided laser lithotripsy is considered the better option for the treatment of this entity as it provides a higher success rate and lower radiation exposure.
机译:背景技术内窥镜乳头状大球囊扩张(EPLBD)允许完全除去大型常见的胆管(CBD)石块,无碎片化;然而,大量比例的非常大的石头和漂浮在逐渐变细胞的CBD上方需要碎石。机械碎石术和胆管透视引导激光碎石术对石头碎片既有效。本研究旨在直接比较这两种技术的功效,在石块清除率,程序持续时间,患者辐射暴露和安全方面。方法方法32例患有非常大的CBD结石或漂浮在逐渐变细胞型CBD上的患者,以及在标准括约肌传递术和/或EPLBD之后提取的患者失败,随机分配给两个第三节推荐中心的机械碎石术或胆管透视引导激光碎石术。如果分配的技术失败,则允许交叉作为救援治疗。结果患者的人口统计数据在两组之间没有差异。与激光碎石术(63%对100%; P <0.01)相比,第一届会议的机械型碎石率在第一届会议上具有显着较低的石头清除率。激光Lithotripsy通过在同一会议内实现完整的石块清关来获救60%的机械碎石术患者。机械碎石术组患者的辐射暴露显着高于激光碎石术组(40 745 Vs.20 989 MGYCM(2); P = 0.04)。不良事件(13%对6%; p = 0.76)和住院时间长度(1 vs.1天; p = 0.27)没有不同。结论虽然机械型碎石尺寸是在EPLBD失败后的非常大的CBD石头的护理标准,但是,在可用的胆管透视引导的激光碎石术被认为是更好的选择该实体的选择,因为它提供了更高的成功率和降低辐射暴露。

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