American journal of surgery · 2013
Can ultrasound common bile duct diameter predict common bile duct stones in the setting of acute cholecystitis?
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Boys Joshua A, Doorly Michael G, Zehetner Joerg, Dhanireddy Kiran K, Senagore Anthony J
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Our aim is assessment of ultrasound (US) common bile duct (CBD) diameter to predict the presence of CBD stones in acute cholecystitis (AC).
METHODS: A retrospective review from 2007 to 2011 with codes for ultrasound, magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP), endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, and AC was conducted.
RESULTS: The incidence of CBD stones was 1.8%. Two hundred forty eight individuals had US+MRCP+ERCP+AC, of which 48 had CBD stones and 200 did not have CBD stones. US CBD diameter range was 3.6 to 19 mm. Ninety percent of MRCPs were negative, and it delayed care by 2.9 days. Mean CBD diameter was narrower in those negative for CBD stones (5.8 vs 7.08; P = .0043). Groups based on diameter ranges <6, 6 to 9.9, and ≥10 mm demonstrated 14%, 14%, and 39% CBD stones, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: US CBD diameter is not sufficient to identify patients at significant risk for CBD stones. MRCP delayed care by 2.9 days. Intraoperative cholangiography may be more effective, based on the low risk of CBD stones in AC.
METHODS: A retrospective review from 2007 to 2011 with codes for ultrasound, magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP), endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, and AC was conducted.
RESULTS: The incidence of CBD stones was 1.8%. Two hundred forty eight individuals had US+MRCP+ERCP+AC, of which 48 had CBD stones and 200 did not have CBD stones. US CBD diameter range was 3.6 to 19 mm. Ninety percent of MRCPs were negative, and it delayed care by 2.9 days. Mean CBD diameter was narrower in those negative for CBD stones (5.8 vs 7.08; P = .0043). Groups based on diameter ranges <6, 6 to 9.9, and ≥10 mm demonstrated 14%, 14%, and 39% CBD stones, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: US CBD diameter is not sufficient to identify patients at significant risk for CBD stones. MRCP delayed care by 2.9 days. Intraoperative cholangiography may be more effective, based on the low risk of CBD stones in AC.