Copyright
©2013 Baishideng Publishing Group Co.
World J Gastroenterol. Apr 21, 2013; 19(15): 2425-2432
Published online Apr 21, 2013. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v19.i15.2425
Published online Apr 21, 2013. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v19.i15.2425
Table 1 Comparison of characteristics of the two groups of patients
Group | EPBID | EST | P value |
Male/female | 52/51 | 45/58 | 0.33 |
Age (yr) | 61.83 ± 17.36 | 60.48 ± 14.69 | 0.55 |
Common bile duct diameter (mm) | 12.74 ± 2.79 | 12.55 ± 3.05 | 0.65 |
Transverse diameter of stone (mm) | 8.38 ± 2.67 | 7.71 ± 2.35 | 0.06 |
No. of stones | 2.17 ± 1.43 | 1.89 ± 1.37 | 0.15 |
Table 2 Comparison of success rate and stone removal time between the two stone removal methods
Group | EPBID | EST | P value |
Success rate of stone removal | 94/103 | 75/103 | 0.00 |
Transverse diameter of stone < 10 mm | 53/54 | 55/71 | 0.00 |
Transverse diameter of stone ≥ 10 mm | 41/49 | 20/32 | 0.03 |
Operation time (min) | 9.86 ± 5.21 | 9.03 ± 4.92 | 0.29 |
Table 3 Comparison of postoperative complications
Group | EPBID | EST | P value |
Pancreatitis | 3/88 | 11/88 | 0.03 |
Transverse diameter of stone < 10 mm | 0/43 | 7/61 | 0.04 |
Transverse diameter of stone ≥ 10 mm | 3/45 | 4/27 | 0.41 |
Bleeding | 0/103 | 3/103 | 0.25 |
Table 4 Clinical factors and success rate of stone removal
Factor | Sample size | Success | Sample size | Failure | OR | P value |
Age (yr) | 169 | 60.30 ± 16.62 | 37 | 64.60 ± 12.81 | 1.31 | 0.14 |
Sex | 1.59 | 0.21 | ||||
Male | 83 | 49.11% | 14 | 37.84% | ||
Female | 86 | 50.89% | 23 | 62.16% | ||
Papilla diverticulum | 2.25 | 0.03 | ||||
Yes | 36 | 21.30% | 14 | 37.84% | ||
No | 133 | 78.70% | 23 | 62.16% | ||
Papilla pre-cut | 0.91 | 0.93 | ||||
No | 164 | 97.04% | 36 | 97.30% | ||
Yes | 5 | 2.96% | 1 | 2.70% | ||
Performance of pancreatography | 0.50 | 0.18 | ||||
Yes | 15 | 8.88% | 6 | 16.22% | ||
No | 154 | 91.12% | 31 | 83.78% | ||
Stone removal method | 3.90 | 0.00 | ||||
EPBD | 94 | 55.62% | 9 | 24.32% | ||
EST | 75 | 44.38% | 28 | 75.68% | ||
Common bile duct diameter | 169 | 12.38 ± 2.49 | 37 | 13.86 ± 4.21 | 3.26 | 0.00 |
Common bile duct stone number | 169 | 2.02 ± 1.43 | 37 | 2.08 ± 1.32 | 1.65 | 0.82 |
Maximum transverse diameter of stone | 169 | 7.81 ± 2.53 | 37 | 9.11 ± 2.28 | 2.08 | 0.00 |
Table 5 Multiple regression model to predict the success rate of stone removal
Factors | β | SE | P value | OR | 95%CI |
Stone removal method | 1.68 | 0.44 | 0.00 | 5.35 | 2.24-12.77 |
Whether there is diverticulum | 0.85 | 0.42 | 0.04 | 2.35 | 1.03-5.37 |
Stone transverse diameter | 0.97 | 0.40 | 0.02 | 2.63 | 1.19-5.80 |
Constant term | -3.22 | 0.48 | 0.00 |
Table 6 Clinical factors and incidence of postoperative pancreatitis
Factor | Sample size | No pancreatitis | Sample size | Pancreatitis | OR | P value |
Age | 162 | 60.33 ± 16.17 | 14 | 64.29 ± 14.58 | 1.09 | 0.38 |
Sex | 1.51 | 0.47 | ||||
Male | 74 | 45.68% | 5 | 35.71% | ||
Female | 88 | 54.32% | 9 | 64.29% | ||
Papilla diverticulum | 1.75 | 0.34 | ||||
Yes | 39 | 24.07% | 5 | 35.71% | ||
No | 123 | 75.93% | 9 | 64.29% | ||
Papilla pre-cut | 8.83 | 0.05 | ||||
No | 159 | 98.15% | 12 | 85.71% | ||
Yes | 3 | 1.85% | 2 | 14.29% | ||
Performance of pancreatography | 0.12 | 0.00 | ||||
Yes | 13 | 8.02% | 6 | 42.86% | ||
No | 149 | 91.98% | 8 | 57.14% | ||
Stone removal method | 4.05 | 0.03 | ||||
EPBD | 85 | 52.47% | 3 | 21.43% | ||
EST | 77 | 47.53% | 11 | 78.57% | ||
Common bile duct diameter | 162 | 12.64 ± 2.98 | 14 | 13.86 ± 2.98 | 2.53 | 0.15 |
Common bile duct stone number | 162 | 2.09 ± 1.46 | 14 | 1.43 ± 0.85 | 0.46 | 0.10 |
Transverse diameter of stone | 162 | 8.17 ± 2.45 | 14 | 8.29 ± 2.64 | 1.49 | 0.86 |
Table 7 Multiple regression model to predict the incidence of postoperative pancreatitis
Factor | β | SE | P value | OR | 95%CI |
Performance of pancreatography | -2.35 | 0.66 | 0.00 | 0.10 | 0.03-0.35 |
Stone removal method | 1.61 | 0.71 | 0.02 | 5.00 | 1.23-20.28 |
Constant term | -1.66 | 0.69 | 0.02 |
- Citation: Fu BQ, Xu YP, Tao LS, Yao J, Zhou CS. Endoscopic papillary balloon intermittent dilatation and endoscopic sphincterotomy for bile duct stones. World J Gastroenterol 2013; 19(15): 2425-2432
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1007-9327/full/v19/i15/2425.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v19.i15.2425