Choledocholithiasis characteristics with periampullary diverticulum and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography procedures: Comparison between two centers from Lanzhou and Kyoto

Table 4 Comparison of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography related contents of choledocholithiasis patient with and without periampullary diverticulum in Lanzhou or Kyoto

ERCP Item	Lanzhou (n = 2702)			Kyoto (n = 613)
	Non-PAD, n = 1873	PAD, n = 829	P	Non-PAD, n = 372	PAD, n = 241	P
ERCP method, n (%)
EST Only	1084 (57.9)	419 (50.5)	< 0.001	326 (87.6)	217 (90.0)	0.36
EST and EPBD	627 (33.5)	352 (42.5)	< 0.001	4 (1.1)	1 (0.4)	0.65
EPBD only	47 (2.5)	14 (1.7)	0.19	4 (1.1)	0 (0.0)	0.16
Non-EST and non-EPBD	115 (6.1)	44 (5.3)	0.40	38 (10.2)	23 (9.5)	0.79
Curative effect, n (%)
Intubation failure	18 (1.0)	8 (1.0)	0.99	1 (0.3)	1 (0.4)
Intubation difficulty	152 (8.1)	80 (9.7)	0.19	121 (32.5)	58 (24.1)	0.02
Difficulty to remove stone out	482 (26.0)	290 (35.3)	< 0.001	196 (53.3)	127 (53.8)	0.89
Residual stone	123 (6.6)	62 (7.6)	0.39	86 (23.4)	58 (24.6)	0.73
Post ERCP complication, n (%)	152 (8.1)	74 (8.9)	0.48	37 (10.0)	14 (5.8)	0.07
Acute cholangitis	46 (2.5)	22 (2.7)	0.76	2 (0.5)	1 (0.4)	1.00
Acute pancreatitis	97 (5.2)	49 (5.9)	0.44	23 (6.2)	8 (3.3)	0.11
Perforation	4 (0.2)	2 (0.2)	1.00	3 (0.8)	0 (0.0)	0.28

ERCP: Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography; EPBD: Endoscopic balloon dilatation.