Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
Peroral Pancreatoscopy-Guided Lithotripsy Compared with Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy in the Management of Pancreatic Duct Stones in Chronic Pancreatitis: A Multicenter Retrospective Cohort Study.
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.
Iwata Keisuke, Iwashita Takuji, Mukai Tsuyoshi, Iwasa Yuhei, Okuno Mitsuru, Yoshida Kensaku, Maruta Akinori, Uemura Shinya, Yasuda Ichiro, Shimizu Masahito
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) is a common treatment for pancreatic stones in chronic pancreatitis. In contrast, peroral pancreatoscopy-guided lithotripsy (POPS-L) remains underexplored, with limited comparative studies to ESWL. This study compared the treatment outcomes of disposable POPS-L tools and ESWL for pancreatic stones.
METHODS: A retrospective analysis was conducted on 66 patients who had undergone pancreatic stone treatment at three institutions between 2006 and 2022. The treatment outcomes of POPS-L and ESWL were compared.
RESULTS: This study included 19 and 47 patients who had undergone POPS-L and ESWL, respectively. In a comparison between POPS-L and ESWL, the stone clearance rates were 78.9% vs. 70.2% (p = 0.55), while the procedure-related complication rates were 21% vs. 6.3% (p = 0.09). The median total session counts were 1 vs. 5 (p < 0.01). The cumulative stone recurrence rates were comparable in both groups. Multivariate analysis revealed no significant factors influencing the stone clearance rates, and the choice between POPS-L and ESWL did not affect the stone clearance rates.
CONCLUSIONS: POPS-L and ESWL exhibited comparable treatment outcomes in terms of stone clearance, complications, and recurrence rates. Furthermore, POPS-L is advantageous due to the need for fewer sessions to achieve pancreatic stone clearance.
METHODS: A retrospective analysis was conducted on 66 patients who had undergone pancreatic stone treatment at three institutions between 2006 and 2022. The treatment outcomes of POPS-L and ESWL were compared.
RESULTS: This study included 19 and 47 patients who had undergone POPS-L and ESWL, respectively. In a comparison between POPS-L and ESWL, the stone clearance rates were 78.9% vs. 70.2% (p = 0.55), while the procedure-related complication rates were 21% vs. 6.3% (p = 0.09). The median total session counts were 1 vs. 5 (p < 0.01). The cumulative stone recurrence rates were comparable in both groups. Multivariate analysis revealed no significant factors influencing the stone clearance rates, and the choice between POPS-L and ESWL did not affect the stone clearance rates.
CONCLUSIONS: POPS-L and ESWL exhibited comparable treatment outcomes in terms of stone clearance, complications, and recurrence rates. Furthermore, POPS-L is advantageous due to the need for fewer sessions to achieve pancreatic stone clearance.