Journal of gastroenterology and hepatology · 2016
Endoscopic wire-guided papillectomy versus conventional papillectomy for ampullary tumors: A prospective comparative pilot study.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание 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.
Lee Tae Yoon, Cheon Young Koog, Shim Chan Sup, Choi Hyun Jong, Moon Jong Ho, Choi Jung Sik, Oh Hyoung-Chul
Аннотация
BACKGROUND AND AIM: A major concern about endoscopic snare papillectomy (ESP) is the risk of procedure-related pancreatitis. To maintain pancreatic duct access for stent placement after ESP, wire-guided ESP (WP) was introduced. The aim of the study was to compare post-procedure pancreatitis rates, the success rate of pancreatic stent insertion, and complete resection rates between WP and conventional ESP (CP) procedures.
METHODS: This was a multi-center, prospective, randomized pilot study. Forty-five patients with ampullary tumors were randomly assigned to a WP group (n = 22) or a CP group (n = 23). In the WP group, a guidewire was placed in the pancreatic duct prior to ESP. A 5-Fr pancreatic stent was passed over the guidewire and placed across the pancreatic duct orifice.
RESULTS: Complete resection was achieved in 20 patients (91%) in the WP group and 18 patients (78%) in the CP group (P = 0.414). A pancreatic stent was placed successfully in all patients in the WP group but in only 15 patients (65%) in the CP group (P = 0.004). Post-papillectomy pancreatitis occurred in four (18%) patients in the WP and three (13%) patients in the CP groups (P = 0.960). In the CP group, three of eight (37.5%) patients without stents developed pancreatitis compared with zero of 15 patients with stents (P = 0.032).
CONCLUSIONS: The WP method is a useful technique used to insert a pancreatic stent after ESP, compared with CP. However, there was no significant difference in the post-procedure pancreatitis or complete resection rates between the two methods.
METHODS: This was a multi-center, prospective, randomized pilot study. Forty-five patients with ampullary tumors were randomly assigned to a WP group (n = 22) or a CP group (n = 23). In the WP group, a guidewire was placed in the pancreatic duct prior to ESP. A 5-Fr pancreatic stent was passed over the guidewire and placed across the pancreatic duct orifice.
RESULTS: Complete resection was achieved in 20 patients (91%) in the WP group and 18 patients (78%) in the CP group (P = 0.414). A pancreatic stent was placed successfully in all patients in the WP group but in only 15 patients (65%) in the CP group (P = 0.004). Post-papillectomy pancreatitis occurred in four (18%) patients in the WP and three (13%) patients in the CP groups (P = 0.960). In the CP group, three of eight (37.5%) patients without stents developed pancreatitis compared with zero of 15 patients with stents (P = 0.032).
CONCLUSIONS: The WP method is a useful technique used to insert a pancreatic stent after ESP, compared with CP. However, there was no significant difference in the post-procedure pancreatitis or complete resection rates between the two methods.