Copyright
©The Author(s) 2016.
World J Gastrointest Endosc. Jul 10, 2016; 8(13): 458-465
Published online Jul 10, 2016. doi: 10.4253/wjge.v8.i13.458
Published online Jul 10, 2016. doi: 10.4253/wjge.v8.i13.458
Electrocautery group (n = 15) | Non-electrocautery group (n = 13) | P value | |
Age: mean ± SD, yr | 60 ± 14 | 64 ± 14 | 0.4891 |
Sex: male/female, n | 12/3 | 11/2 | 0.8602 |
Type of PFC, n (%) | 0.6152 | ||
WON | 4 (27) | 6 (46) | |
Pancreatic pseudocyst | 6 (40) | 4 (31) | |
ANC | 4 (27) | 3 (23) | |
APFC | 1 (6) | 0 | |
Location of PFC, n (%) | 0.9762 | ||
Head | 3 (20) | 3 (23) | |
Body-tail | 11 (73) | 9 (69) | |
Head-body-tail | 1 (7) | 1 (8) | |
Diameter of PFC, mean ± SD, cm | 7.2 ± 3.1 | 9.9 ± 3.7 | 0.0611 |
Infected PFC, n (%) | 13 (87) | 10 (77) | 0.8602 |
- Citation: Kitamura K, Yamamiya A, Ishii Y, Nomoto T, Honma T, Yoshida H. Electrocautery vs non-electrocautery dilation catheters in endoscopic ultrasonography-guided pancreatic fluid collection drainage. World J Gastrointest Endosc 2016; 8(13): 458-465
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1948-5190/full/v8/i13/458.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4253/wjge.v8.i13.458