论文部分内容阅读
AIM To compare the efficacy of a session of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy(ESWL) before endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography(ERCP) vs ERCP only for problematic and large common bile duct(CBD) stones.METHODS Adult patients with CBD stones for whom initial ERCP was unsuccessful because of the large size of CBD stones were identified. The patients were randomized into two groups,an “ESWL + ERCP group” and an “ERCP-only” group. For ESWL + ERCP cases,ESWL was performed prior to ERCP. Clearance of the CBD,complications related to the ESWL/ERCP procedure,frequency of mechanical lithotripsy use and duration of the ERCP procedure were evaluated in both groups.RESULTS There was no significant difference in baseline characteristics between the two groups. A session of ESWL before ERCP compared with ERCP only resulted in similar outcomes in terms of successful stone removal within the first treatment session(74.2% vs 71.0%,P = 0.135),but a higher clearance rate within the second treatment session(84.4% vs 51.6%,P = 0.018) and total stone clearance(96.0% vs 86.0%,P = 0.029). Moreover,ESWL prior to ERCP not only reduced ERCP procedure time(43 ± 21 min vs 59 ± 28 min,P = 0.034) and the rate of mechanical lithotripsy use(20% vs 30%,P = 0.025),but also raised the clearance rate of extremely large stones(80.0% vs 40.0%,P = 0.016). Post-ERCP complications were similar for the two groups.CONCLUSION Based on the higher rate of successful stone removal and minimal complications,ESWL prior to ERCP appears to be a safe and effective treatment for the endoscopic removal of problematic and large CBD stones.
AIM To compare the efficacy of a session of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) before endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) vs ERCP only for problematic and large common bile duct (CBD) stones. METHODS Adult patients with CBD stones for ever initial ERCP was unsuccessful The patients were randomized into two groups, an “ESWL + ERCP group” and an “ERCP-only” group. For ESWL + ERCP cases, ESWL was performed prior to ERCP. Clearance of the CBD, complications related to the ESWL / ERCP procedure, frequency of mechanical lithotripsy use and duration of the ERCP procedure were evaluated in both groups .RESULTS There was no significant difference in baseline characteristics between the two groups. A session of ESWL before ERCP compared with ERCP only resulted in similar outcomes in terms of successful stone removal within the first treatment session (74.2% vs 71.0%, P = 0.135), but a higher clearance rate within the seco nd treatment session (84.4% vs 51.6%, P = 0.018) and total stone clearance (96.0% vs 86.0%, P = 0.029). Moreover, ESWL prior to ERCP not only reduced ERCP procedure time (43 ± 21 min vs 59 ± P = 0.034) and the rate of mechanical lithotripsy use (20% vs 30%, P = 0.025) but also raised the clearance rate of extremely large stones (80.0% vs 40.0%, P = 0.016) ERCP complications were similar for the two groups. CONCLUSION Based on the higher rate of successful stone removal and minimal complications, ESWL prior to ERCP appears to be a safe and effective treatment for the endoscopic removal of problematic and large CBD stones.