Digestive surgery · 2010
A patent accessory pancreatic duct prevents pancreatitis following endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography.
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.
Tabata Taku, Kamisawa Terumi, Takuma Kensuke, Anjiki Hajime, Egawa Naoto
Аннотация
BACKGROUND/AIM: Pancreatitis is the most common and feared complication of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). We previously examined patency of the accessory pancreatic duct (APD) by dye injection endoscopic retrograde pancreatography (ERP). APD patency was found in 43% of 291 control cases who had no particular changes in the head of the pancreas compared to only 6% in patients with acute pancreatitis. APD patency was closely related with the shape of the terminal portion of the APD. This study aimed to clarify whether patency of the APD prevents post-ERCP pancreatitis.
METHODS: We examined retrospectively the terminal shape of the APD by ERP in 34 patients with post-ERCP pancreatitis. Based on these data, patency of the APD was estimated from its terminal shape in patients with post-ERCP pancreatitis.
RESULTS: The stick-type APD (p < 0.01), which indicated high patency, was less frequent, and the branch-type APD (p < 0.01) and halfway-type APD, or no APD (p < 0.01), which showed quite low patency, were more frequent in patients with post-ERCP pancreatitis compared with controls. Accordingly, the estimated patency of the APD in post-ERCP pancreatitis patients was only 16%, which was significantly lower than the 43% in controls. There was no significant relationship between the estimated APD patency and the severity of post-ERCP pancreatitis.
CONCLUSIONS: The estimated APD patency was significantly lower in patients with post-ERCP pancreatitis. A patent APD may function as a second drainage system to reduce the pressure in the main pancreatic duct and prevent post-ERCP pancreatitis.
METHODS: We examined retrospectively the terminal shape of the APD by ERP in 34 patients with post-ERCP pancreatitis. Based on these data, patency of the APD was estimated from its terminal shape in patients with post-ERCP pancreatitis.
RESULTS: The stick-type APD (p < 0.01), which indicated high patency, was less frequent, and the branch-type APD (p < 0.01) and halfway-type APD, or no APD (p < 0.01), which showed quite low patency, were more frequent in patients with post-ERCP pancreatitis compared with controls. Accordingly, the estimated patency of the APD in post-ERCP pancreatitis patients was only 16%, which was significantly lower than the 43% in controls. There was no significant relationship between the estimated APD patency and the severity of post-ERCP pancreatitis.
CONCLUSIONS: The estimated APD patency was significantly lower in patients with post-ERCP pancreatitis. A patent APD may function as a second drainage system to reduce the pressure in the main pancreatic duct and prevent post-ERCP pancreatitis.