Copyright
©The Author(s) 2020.
World J Gastroenterol. May 21, 2020; 26(19): 2403-2415
Published online May 21, 2020. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v26.i19.2403
Published online May 21, 2020. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v26.i19.2403
Lobo classification, 1998 | Boix classification, 2006 | Li-Tanaka classification, 2012 | ||||||||||
IDP | JPD | P value | I | II | III | P value | I | II | III | IV | P value | |
Total | 65 (6.7) | 902 (93.3) | 306 (31.6) | 556 (57.5) | 105 (10.9) | 65 (6.7) | 655 (67.7) | 105 (10.9) | 142 (14.7) | |||
Diameter of CBD (mm) | 14 ± 4 | 14 ± 5 | 0.33 | 14 ± 5 | 15 ± 5 | 14 ± 6 | 0.37 | 14 ± 4 | 14 ± 5 | 14 ± 6 | 15 ± 5 | 0.56 |
Max. size of PAD (mm) | 19 ± 8 | 13 ± 7 | < 0.001 | 15 ± 8 | 13 ± 7 | 11 ± 7 | < 0.001 | 19 ± 8 | 13 ± 7 | 11 ± 7 | 14 ± 9 | < 0.001 |
≤ 10 | 11 (16.9) | 531 (58.9) | 146 (47.7) | 325 (58.5) | 71 (67.6) | 11 (16.9) | 384 (58.6) | 71 (67.6) | 76 (53.5) | |||
10-20 | 38 (58.5) | 287 (31.8) | 118 (38.6) | 182 (32.7) | 25 (23.8) | 38 (58.5) | 217 (33.1) | 25 (23.8) | 45 (31.7) | |||
> 20 | 16 (24.6) | 84 (9.3) | 42 (13.7) | 49 (8.8) | 9 (8.6) | 16 (24.6) | 54 (8.2) | 9 (8.6) | 21 (14.8) | |||
CBD stones | 51 (86.4) | 765 (85.6) | 0.85 | 262 (87.9) | 470 (85.0) | 84 (82.4) | 0.31 | 51 (86.4) | 559 (85.9) | 84 (82.4) | 122 (86.5) | 0.79 |
Max diameter (mm) | 13 ± 5 | 12 ± 7 | 0.23 | 12 ± 6 | 13 ± 7 | 12 ± 6 | 0.26 | 13 ± 5 | 12 ± 6 | 12 ± 6 | 13 ± 8 | 0.58 |
Multiple stone | 19 (37.3) | 353 (46.1) | 0.22 | 115 (43.9) | 224 (47.7) | 33 (39.3) | 0.29 | 19 (37.3) | 258 (46.2) | 33 (39.3) | 62 (50.8) | 0.24 |
Difficult stone removal | 16 (31.4) | 273 (35.7) | 0.53 | 96 (36.6) | 159 (33.8) | 34 (40.5) | 0.44 | 16 (31.4) | 195 (34.9) | 34 (40.5) | 44 (36.1) | 0.71 |
Mechanical lithotripsy | 4 (6.2) | 35 (3.9) | 0.33 | 21 (6.9) | 16 (2.9) | 2 (1.9) | 0.008 | 4 (6.2) | 31 (4.7) | 2 (1.9) | 2 (1.4) | 0.13 |
Retained stones | 3 (5.9) | 59 (7.7) | 0.79 | 20 (7.6) | 34 (7.2) | 8 (9.5) | 0.77 | 3 (5.9) | 38 (6.8) | 8 (9.5) | 13 (10.7) | 0.42 |
Guide wire in PD | 6 (9.2) | 86 (9.5) | 0.94 | 30 (9.8) | 48 (8.6) | 14 (13.3) | 0.32 | 6 (9.2) | 66 (10.1) | 14 (13.3) | 6 (4.2) | 0.08 |
ERPD | 1 (1.5) | 45 (5.0) | 0.36 | 11 (3.6) | 31 (5.6) | 4 (3.8) | 0.38 | 1 (1.5) | 36 (5.5) | 4 (3.8) | 5 (3.5) | 0.50 |
Operative time (min) | 44 ± 21 | 41 ± 18 | 0.35 | 41 ± 18 | 41 ± 17 | 43 ± 21 | 0.81 | 44 ± 21 | 41 ± 17 | 43 ± 21 | 39 ± 17 | 0.48 |
Difficult cannulation | 15 (23.1) | 93 (10.3) | 0.002 | 38 (12.4) | 57 (10.3) | 13 (12.4) | 0.57 | 15 (23.1) | 68 (10.4) | 13 (12.4) | 12 (8.5) | 0.01 |
Successful cannulation | 59 (90.8) | 894 (99.1) | < 0.001 | 298 (97.4) | 553 (99.5)a | 102 (97.1) | 0.02 | 59 (90.8) | 651 (99.4)b | 102 (97.1) | 141 (99.3)b | < 0.001 |
Adverse events | 8 (12.3) | 79 (8.8) | 0.33 | 26 (8.5) | 48 (8.6) | 13 (12.4) | 0.44 | 8 (12.3) | 57 (8.7) | 13 (12.4) | 9 (6.3) | 0.30 |
Post-ERCP pancreatitis | 5 (7.7) | 53 (5.9) | 0.58 | 19 (6.2) | 29 (5.2) | 10 (9.5) | 0.23 | 5 (7.7) | 38 (5.8) | 10 (9.5) | 5 (3.5) | 0.24 |
Acute cholangitis | 2 (3.1) | 25 (2.8) | 0.70 | 6 (2.0) | 18 (3.2) | 3 (2.9) | 0.55 | 2 (3.1) | 18 (2.8) | 3 (2.9) | 4 (2.8) | 0.98 |
Perforation | 1 (1.5) | 1 (0.1) | 0.13 | 1 (0.3) | 1 (0.2) | 0 (0.0) | 1.00 | 1 (1.5) | 1 (0.2) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0.20 |
- Citation: Yue P, Zhu KX, Wang HP, Meng WB, Liu JK, Zhang L, Zhu XL, Zhang H, Miao L, Wang ZF, Zhou WC, Suzuki A, Tanaka K, Li X. Clinical significance of different periampullary diverticulum classifications for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography cannulation. World J Gastroenterol 2020; 26(19): 2403-2415
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1007-9327/full/v26/i19/2403.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v26.i19.2403