...
首页> 外文期刊>Gastrointestinal Endoscopy >Is it necessary to insert a nasobiliary drainage tube routinely after endoscopic clearance of the common bile duct in patients with choledocholithiasis-induced cholangitis? A prospective, randomized trial.
【24h】

Is it necessary to insert a nasobiliary drainage tube routinely after endoscopic clearance of the common bile duct in patients with choledocholithiasis-induced cholangitis? A prospective, randomized trial.

机译:胆总管结石病诱发的胆管炎患者经内镜清除胆总管后是否需要常规插入鼻胆管?前瞻性随机试验。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

BACKGROUND: Little is known about whether a routinely inserted endoscopic nasobiliary drainage (ENBD) tube improves the clinical course in patients with choledocholithiasis-induced acute cholangitis after clearance of choledocholithiasis. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate the need for ENBD on the clinical outcomes of patients with acute cholangitis undergoing endoscopic clearance of common bile duct (CBD) stones. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized study. SETTING: Tertiary referral center. PATIENTS: A total of 104 patients with choledocholithiasis-induced acute cholangitis who underwent primary endoscopic treatment were compared according to insertion of an ENBD tube (51 in the ENBD group and 53 in the no-ENBD group). INTERVENTION: Insertion of an ENBD tube after clearance of CBD stones. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Recurrence of cholangitis and length of hospital stay after clearance of CBD stones. RESULTS: Baseline clinical characteristics were similar between both groups. There were no significant differences in the recurrence rate of cholangitis at 24 weeks (3.9% for the ENBD group vs 3.8% for the no-ENBD group at 24 weeks; P = .99) and length of hospital stay (7.9 days [standard error = 1.2] for the ENBD group vs 7.9 days [standard error = 0.7] for the no-ENBD group; P = .98). However, procedure time was longer (26.2 [SE = 1.8] minutes vs 22.7 [SE = 1.0] minutes, respectively; P = .01) and the discomfort score was higher (4.9 [SE = 0.4] vs 2.8 [SE = 0.3], respectively; P = .02) in the ENBD group than in the no-ENBD group. LIMITATIONS: Single-center study. CONCLUSIONS: A routinely inserted ENBD tube did not improve the clinical course, despite patients having to endure increased procedure time and discomfort, and the insertion would therefore be unnecessary.
机译:背景:清除胆总管结石后,常规插入内窥镜鼻胆管引流管(ENBD)是否能改善胆总管结石病诱发的急性胆管炎患者的临床病程,对此知之甚少。目的:本研究的目的是研究对接受内镜清除胆总管结石的急性胆管炎患者的临床结局是否需要ENBD。设计:前瞻性随机研究。地点:第三级转诊中心。病人:总共104例胆总管结石病引起的急性胆管炎患者接受了一次内镜治疗,根据ENBD管的插入情况进行了比较(ENBD组为51例,no-ENBD组为53例)。干预:清除CBD结石后插入ENBD管。主要观察指标:清除CBD结石后再发胆管炎和住院时间。结果:两组的基线临床特征相似。住院24周的胆管炎复发率(ENBD组为3.9%,no-ENBD组为3.8%; P = .99)和住院时间(7.9天,[标准误差]无显着差异。 ENBD组= 1.2],而非ENBD组为7.9天[标准误= 0.7]; P = 0.98)。但是,手术时间更长(分别为26.2 [SE = 1.8]分钟和22.7 [SE = 1.0]分钟; P = 0.01),不适感评分也更高(4.9 [SE = 0.4] vs 2.8 [SE = 0.3]分别为:ENBD组比无ENBD组的P = .02)。局限性:单中心研究。结论:尽管患者不得不忍受增加的手术时间和不适感,常规插入的ENBD管并不能改善临床过程,因此没有必要插入。

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