Brief Article
Copyright ©2013 Baishideng Publishing Group Co.
World J Gastroenterol. Aug 14, 2013; 19(30): 4966-4972
Published online Aug 14, 2013. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v19.i30.4966
Table 1 Patient characteristics n (%)
Characteristicsn = 22
Age (yr)73.4 ± 11.8 (range, 40-89)
Gender (male)15 (68)
Prior cholecystectomies119 (86.4)
Acalculous gallbladder3 (13.6)
Juxtapapillary diverticulum8 (36.4)
Subtotal gastrectomy with Billroth-II anastomosis2 (9.1)
Total gastrectomy with Roux-en-Y anastomosis1 (4.5)
Patients with recurrent CBD stones12 (54.5)
Table 2 Results of endoscopic retrograde cholangiography n (%)
Characteristicsn = 22
CBD stones
No. of stones (one/two/three/more than three)10/2/4/6
Mean maximum diameter (mm)13.4 ± 5.6 (range, 5-25.4)
Mean maximum diameter of CBD (mm)17.9 (range, 10-30)
ES and/or EPBD
ES1 (4.5)
EPBD13 (59.1)
ES + EPBD6 (27.3)
None12 (9.1)
Mean maximum inflated diameter during EPBD2 (mm)13.6 (range, 12-15)
Stone extraction methods
Balloon and/or basket20 (90.9)
Mechanical lithotripter2 (9.1)
Intact stone extraction11 (50)
Table 3 Results of peroral cholangioscopy n (%)
Characteristicsn = 22
Mean procedure time (min)8.2 (range, 5-18)
The endoscope reached
Hilum or IHD8 (36.4)
CBD and the hilum was seen10 (45.5)
Distal CBD and the hilum was not seen4 (18.2)
Residual stones on the POC
No. of patients5 (22.7)
No. of residual stones (one/three/multiple) 3/1/1
Maximum diameter of stones (range, mm)2-5
Table 4 Clinical features between the patients with and without residual bile duct stones n (%)
With residual stones (n = 5)Without residual stones (n = 17)
Age (yr)69 ± 18.674.7 ± 9.5
Sex (male)4 (80)11 (64.7)
Recurrent CBD stones4 (80)7 (41.2)
Prior choledocholithotomy3 (60)6 (35.3)
Mean maximum CBD diameter (mm)19 ± 7.617.6 ± 4.5
Stones number (single)2 (40)8 (47)
Mean maximum stone diameter (mm)14.1 ± 7.213.2 ± 5.2
Lithotripsy0 (0)2 (11.8)
Intact stone extraction1 (20)10 (58.9)
Diameter of EPBD1 (mm)13.5 ± 1.7 (n = 4)13.5 ± 1.4