首页> 外文期刊>Endoscopy: Journal for Clinical Use Biopsy and Technique >A comparative study of standard ERCP catheter and hydrophilic guide wire in the selective cannulation of the common bile duct.
【24h】

A comparative study of standard ERCP catheter and hydrophilic guide wire in the selective cannulation of the common bile duct.

机译:标准ERCP导管和亲水性导丝在胆总管选择性插管中的比较研究。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Deep cannulation of the common bile duct (CBD) is paramount for the success of endoscopic biliary intervention. The aim of the present study was to compare standard ERCP catheter and hydrophilic guide wire (HGW) in the selective cannulation of the CBD. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 332 patients were randomly assigned to cannulation with a standard catheter (n = 165) or a HGW (n = 167). If cannulation had not succeeded after 10 minutes with the technique assigned at randomization, a further attempt was made for an additional 10 minutes using the alternative technique. The following were assessed: primary and overall selective cannulation, time to cholangiography, number of pancreatic opacifications and guide-wire pancreatic duct insertions, and complication rates. RESULTS: The primary success rate of selective CBD cannulation was higher in the HGW (81.4 %) than in the standard catheter group (53.9 %; P < 0.001). The overall cannulation rate after crossover was comparable between the two groups (standard catheter 84 % vs. HGW 83.8 %; P = 0.19). Time required for primary selective CBD cannulation was 3.53 +/- 0.32 minutes in the standard catheter vs. 4.48 +/- 0.32 minutes in the HGW group ( P = 0.04), and the number of insertions of the guide wire into the pancreatic duct was 3.29 +/- 0.47 in the standard catheter vs. 2.7 +/- 0.21 in the HGW group ( P = 0.22). Pancreatic opacifications occurred 3.19 +/- 0.20 times in the standard catheter vs. 1.50 +/- 0.22 times in the HGW group ( P < 0.001). Precut techniques were used in 56 patients (16.9 %) (n = 31 in the standard catheter vs. n = 25 in the HGW group; P = 0.07). The frequency of postinterventional pancreatitis and hemorrhage did not differ between the two groups. A young woman developed post-ERCP hemolytic crisis due to glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase deficiency. There was no procedure-related mortality. CONCLUSIONS: The use of HGW, as primary technique or as a secondary technique after failure of cannulation with a standard catheter, achieves a high rate of selective CBD cannulation.
机译:背景和研究目的:胆总管(CBD)的深部插管对于内窥镜胆管介入治疗的成功至关重要。本研究的目的是比较标准ERCP导管和亲水性导丝(HGW)在CBD的选择性插管中的作用。患者与方法:共有332例患者被随机分配到使用标准导管(n = 165)或HGW(n = 167)进行插管。如果使用随机分配的技术在10分钟后插管仍未成功,则使用替代技术再尝试10分钟。评估以下内容:初次和总体选择性插管,胆管造影时间,胰腺浑浊次数和导丝胰管插入量以及并发症发生率。结果:HGW选择性CBD插管的主要成功率(81.4%)高于标准导管组(53.9%; P <0.001)。两组交叉后的总插管率相当(标准导管为84%,HGW为83.8%; P = 0.19)。标准导管初次选择性CBD插管所需的时间为3.53 +/- 0.32分钟,而HGW组为4.48 +/- 0.32分钟(P = 0.04),导丝插入胰管的次数为标准导管为3.29 +/- 0.47,而HGW组为2.7 +/- 0.21(P = 0.22)。胰腺混浊发生在标准导管中是3.19 +/- 0.20倍,而在HGW组中是1.50 +/- 0.22倍(P <0.001)。预切技术用于56例患者(16.9%)(标准导管中n = 31,而HGW组中n = 25; P = 0.07)。两组之间介入后胰腺炎和出血的频率没有差异。一名年轻妇女因6-磷酸葡萄糖脱氢酶缺乏症而发生了ERCP后的溶血危机。没有与手术相关的死亡率。结论:在标准导管插管失败后,使用HGW作为主要技术或次要技术可实现较高的选择性CBD插管率。

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