Endoscopy · 2024
Comparison of disposable digital single-operator cholangioscopy versus direct peroral cholangioscopy for the diagnosis of intraductal superficial lesions of the bile duct.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеVideo-Audio MediaНазвание 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.
Shin Il Sang, Moon Jong Ho, Lee Yun Nah, Kim Hee Kyung, Chung Jun Chul, Lee Tae Hoon, Yang Jae Kook, Cho Young Deok, Park Sang-Heum
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Disposable digital single-operator cholangioscopy (D-SOC) and direct peroral cholangioscopy (D-POC) using an ultraslim endoscope are established POC modalities for the diagnosis and treatment of various biliary diseases. We compared the usefulness of D-SOC and D-POC for the diagnosis of intraductal superficial lesions of the bile duct (ISL-Bs).
METHODS: 38 consecutive patients with suspected biliary diseases who underwent both D-SOC and D-POC were enrolled. The primary outcome was ISL-B detection rate, and the secondary outcomes were technical success of POC and POC-guided forceps biopsy sampling (POC-FB), procedure time, visualization quality, and tissue adequacy.
RESULTS: D-SOC had a higher technical success rate than D-POC but the difference was not statistically significant (100% vs. 92.1%, P = 0.25). D-POC had a marginally higher ISL-B detection rate (34.2% vs. 28.9%, P = 0.68) and significantly higher visualization quality (P = 0.03). The mean (SD) procedure time was significantly shorter with D-SOC (11.00 [1.33] vs. 19.03 [2.95] minutes, P<0.001). The technical success rate of POC-FB and tissue adequacy did not differ between the two techniques (D-SOC vs. D-POC: 81.8% vs. 84.6%, P = 0.69 and 77.8% vs. 90.9%, P = 0.57, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS: Both POC systems were safe and useful for the detection, characterization, and diagnosis of minute ISL-Bs. While D-SOC displayed a shorter procedure time and a tendency for higher technical success rate, D-POC provided superior visualization quality, allowing detailed observation of the surface structure and microvascular patterns.
METHODS: 38 consecutive patients with suspected biliary diseases who underwent both D-SOC and D-POC were enrolled. The primary outcome was ISL-B detection rate, and the secondary outcomes were technical success of POC and POC-guided forceps biopsy sampling (POC-FB), procedure time, visualization quality, and tissue adequacy.
RESULTS: D-SOC had a higher technical success rate than D-POC but the difference was not statistically significant (100% vs. 92.1%, P = 0.25). D-POC had a marginally higher ISL-B detection rate (34.2% vs. 28.9%, P = 0.68) and significantly higher visualization quality (P = 0.03). The mean (SD) procedure time was significantly shorter with D-SOC (11.00 [1.33] vs. 19.03 [2.95] minutes, P<0.001). The technical success rate of POC-FB and tissue adequacy did not differ between the two techniques (D-SOC vs. D-POC: 81.8% vs. 84.6%, P = 0.69 and 77.8% vs. 90.9%, P = 0.57, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS: Both POC systems were safe and useful for the detection, characterization, and diagnosis of minute ISL-Bs. While D-SOC displayed a shorter procedure time and a tendency for higher technical success rate, D-POC provided superior visualization quality, allowing detailed observation of the surface structure and microvascular patterns.