Copyright
©The Author(s) 2024.
World J Gastrointest Surg. May 27, 2024; 16(5): 1363-1370
Published online May 27, 2024. doi: 10.4240/wjgs.v16.i5.1363
Published online May 27, 2024. doi: 10.4240/wjgs.v16.i5.1363
Table 1 Univariate analysis for general data
Variable | Without CBD stones (n = 124) | With CBD stones (n = 108) | P value |
Age (yr) | 50.88 ± 15.60 | 55.06 ± 18.00 | 0.060 |
Sex, n (%) | 0.575 | ||
Female | 70 (56.45) | 57 (52.78) | |
Male | 54 (43.55) | 51 (47.22) | |
BMI (kg/m2) | 23.79 ± 3.78 | 23.62 ± 3.71 | 0.732 |
Hypertension, n (%) | 19 (15.32) | 9 (8.33) | 0.103 |
Diabetes, n (%) | 12 (9.68) | 5 (4.63) | 0.141 |
Hyperlipidemia, n (%) | 23 (18.55) | 6 (5.56) | 0.003 |
ALT (U/L) | 24.50 (16.00, 45.25) | 100.45 (32.00, 216.25) | < 0.001 |
AST (U/L) | 24.00 (19.00, 39.25) | 53.00 (26.00, 130.75) | < 0.001 |
ALP (U/L) | 84.50 (70.00, 116.50) | 160.80 (104.50, 275.25) | < 0.001 |
GGT (U/L) | 43.00 (23.00, 118.25) | 251.50 (121.50, 576.50) | < 0.001 |
DBil (µmol/L) | 4.25 (2.98, 6.60) | 10.00 (4.90, 29.48) | < 0.001 |
IBil (µmol/L) | 9.35 (6.47, 13.38) | 10.70 (7.50, 15.20) | 0.167 |
Table 2 Univariate analysis for anatomical factors of the extrahepatic bile duct
Variable | Without CBD stones (n = 124) | With CBD stones (n = 108) | P value |
CHD diameter (mm) | 4.10 (3.20, 6.03) | 9.40 (6.88, 12.50) | < 0.001 |
CD diameter (mm) | 3.10 (2.40, 4.93) | 5.85 (3.70, 8.50) | < 0.001 |
CBD diameter (mm) | 5.00 (3.80, 6.70) | 10.35 (8.10, 13.00) | < 0.001 |
CHD length (mm) | 20.51 ± 8.88 | 25.12 ± 12.58 | 0.002 |
CD length (mm) | 26.10 ± 12.76 | 35.83 ± 21.69 | < 0.001 |
CBD length (mm) | 50.46 ± 12.87 | 52.65 ± 13.84 | 0.212 |
CBD angulation (°) | 138.94 ± 19.19 | 112.79 ± 19.12 | < 0.001 |
Oblique angle of the CBD (°) | 60.12 ± 18.54 | 47.08 ± 19.85 | < 0.001 |
Insertion position of CD, n (%) | |||
Anterior | 15 (12.10) | 21 (19.44) | 0.123 |
Posterior | 8 (6.45) | 33 (30.56) | < 0.001 |
Lateral | 95 (76.61) | 50 (46.30) | < 0.001 |
Medial | 6 (4.84) | 4 (3.70) | 0.920 |
Upper | 85 (68.55) | 57 (52.78) | 0.014 |
Middle | 38 (30.65) | 48 (44.44) | 0.030 |
Lower | 1 (0.81) | 3 (2.78) | 0.519 |
Route of CD, n (%) | |||
Linear type | 15 (12.10) | 8 (7.41) | 0.233 |
Curved type | 92 (74.19) | 80 (74.07) | 0.983 |
Spiral type | 8 (6.45) | 14 (12.96) | 0.091 |
Complex type | 9 (7.26) | 6 (5.56) | 0.599 |
Route of CBD, n (%) | |||
Polyline type | 118 (95.16) | 98 (90.74) | 0.185 |
S type | 6 (4.84) | 10 (9.26) | 0.185 |
Table 3 Independent risk factors for common bile duct stones in multivariate analysis
Variable | aOR (95%CI) | Adjusted P value |
CHD diameter | 1.43 (1.07-1.92) | 0.016 |
CBD diameter | 1.68 (1.27-2.23) | < 0.001 |
CHD length | 0.92 (0.84-0.99) | 0.034 |
CBD angulation | 0.92 (0.89-0.95) | < 0.001 |
- Citation: Cao Z, Zhou J, Wei L, He HY, Li J. Effect of the extrahepatic bile duct anatomy on choledocholithiasis and its clinical significance. World J Gastrointest Surg 2024; 16(5): 1363-1370
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1948-9366/full/v16/i5/1363.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4240/wjgs.v16.i5.1363