Clinical radiology · 2021
Percutaneous biliary stone clearance: is there still a need? A 10-year single-centre experience.
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.
Kilic Y, Graham A, Tait N P, Spalding D, Vlavianos P, Jiao L R, Alsafi A
Аннотация
AIM: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of percutaneous biliary stone clearance in a single hepatopancreaticobiliary (HPB) centre.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: All patients who underwent percutaneous biliary stone clearance between 2010 and 2020 at a HPB centre were identified from the radiology information system. Their demographic data, presentation, previous surgery, number/size of biliary calculi, success and complications were collected from patient records. Unpaired student's t-test was used to compare numerical variables and the Chi-square test was used to compare categorical data.
RESULTS: Sixty-eight patients aged between 58.5-91.1 years underwent the procedure, and 42.6% (29/68) had the procedure due to surgically altered anatomy precluding endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). The most common presentation was cholangitis (62%). The success rate of percutaneous stone clearance was 92.7%. The average number of calculi was two (range 1-12). Of the patients included, 4.4% developed pancreatitis, 4.4% developed cholangitis, and 1.5% had hepatic artery branch pseudoaneurysm successfully treated with transarterial embolisation. There was no significant difference in success or complication rates between the different access sites (right lobe, left lobe, roux-loop, T-tube, p=0.7767).
CONCLUSION: Percutaneous biliary stone clearance is safe and effective and will continue to play an important role where ERCP fails or is impossible due surgically altered anatomy.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: All patients who underwent percutaneous biliary stone clearance between 2010 and 2020 at a HPB centre were identified from the radiology information system. Their demographic data, presentation, previous surgery, number/size of biliary calculi, success and complications were collected from patient records. Unpaired student's t-test was used to compare numerical variables and the Chi-square test was used to compare categorical data.
RESULTS: Sixty-eight patients aged between 58.5-91.1 years underwent the procedure, and 42.6% (29/68) had the procedure due to surgically altered anatomy precluding endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). The most common presentation was cholangitis (62%). The success rate of percutaneous stone clearance was 92.7%. The average number of calculi was two (range 1-12). Of the patients included, 4.4% developed pancreatitis, 4.4% developed cholangitis, and 1.5% had hepatic artery branch pseudoaneurysm successfully treated with transarterial embolisation. There was no significant difference in success or complication rates between the different access sites (right lobe, left lobe, roux-loop, T-tube, p=0.7767).
CONCLUSION: Percutaneous biliary stone clearance is safe and effective and will continue to play an important role where ERCP fails or is impossible due surgically altered anatomy.