Retrospective Study
Copyright ©2014 Baishideng Publishing Group Inc.
World J Gastroenterol. Dec 21, 2014; 20(47): 17962-17969
Published online Dec 21, 2014. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v20.i47.17962
Table 1 Baseline characteristics of the patients
VariableGroup A (n = 64)Group B (n = 89)P value
Mean age (yr)68.5 ± 10.9 (39-87)67.3 ± 9.8 (42-82)> 0.05
Sex (male/female)33:3148:41> 0.05
CBD stones
Mean diameter of stones (mm)12.1 ± 2.0 (10-25)12.9 ± 2.6 (10-27)> 0.05
Number of stones (1/2/≥ 3)34/11/1947/15/27> 0.05
Mean diameter of CBD (mm)15.1 ± 3.3 (10-26)15.4 ± 3.6 (10-28)> 0.05
Periampullary diverticula23 (35.9%)31 (34.8%)> 0.05
Table 2 Comparison of outcomes between the two groups n (%)
Group A (n = 64)Group B (n = 89)P value
Precutting with needle knife4 (6.3)6 (6.7)> 0.05
Mechanical lithotripsy3 (4.7)7 (7.9)< 0.05
Overall stone removal62 (96.9)84 (94.4)> 0.05
Complete stone removal in 1st session58 (90.6)79 (88.8)> 0.05
Complete stone removal in 2nd session4 (6.3)5 (5.6)> 0.05
Table 3 Comparison of complications between the two groups n (%)
Group A (n = 64)Group B (n = 89)P value
Pancreatitis3 (4.7)4 (4.5)> 0.05
Hyperamylasemia7 (10.9)9 (10.1)> 0.05
Bleeding1 (1.6)5 (5.6)< 0.05
Minor bleeding1 (1.6)3 (3.3)
Major bleeding02 (2.2)
Mortality02 (2.2)
Perforation00
Acute cholangitis and cholecystitis00
Recurrence of CBD stones1 (1.6)6 (6.7)< 0.05