Copyright
©2014 Baishideng Publishing Group Inc.
World J Clin Cases. Nov 16, 2014; 2(11): 689-697
Published online Nov 16, 2014. doi: 10.12998/wjcc.v2.i11.689
Published online Nov 16, 2014. doi: 10.12998/wjcc.v2.i11.689
Ref. | Type |
Stapfer et al[18] | Type I, duodenal perforation of medial or lateral wall |
Type II, perivaterian perforation | |
Type III, perforation of distal bile duct | |
Type IV, retroperitoneal air alone | |
Howard et al[17] | Group I, guidewire perforation |
Group II, periampullary retroperitoneal perforation | |
Group III, duodenal perforation remote from the ampulla |
Ref. | Patients (n) | Patients according to treatment method, n (%) | Treatment method | Mortality n (%) |
Alfieri et al[15] | 15 | 6 (40.0) | Conservative management + ENBD ± PTBD | 0 (0.0) |
9 (60.0) | Surgery | 1 (11.1) | ||
Wu et al[16] | 11 | 6 (54.5) | Conservative management | 0 (0.0) |
5 (45.5) | Surgery | 4 (80.0) | ||
Kim et al[58] | 5 | 2 (40.0) | Conservative management | 0 (0.0) |
3 (60.0) | Surgery | 0 (0.0) | ||
Enns et al[12] | 13 | 11 (84.6) | Conservative management ± biliary drainage (PTBD, ERBD) | 0 (0.0) |
2 (13.4) | Surgery | 0 (0.0) | ||
Polydorou et al[23] | 30 | 24 (80.0) | Conservative management ± biliary drainage (PTBD, ERBD) | 0 (0.0) |
6 (20.0) | Surgery | 0 (0.0) | ||
Stapfer et al[18] | 6 | 3 (50.0) | Conservative management | 0 (0.0) |
3 (50.0) | Surgery | 0 (0.0) | ||
Howard et al[17] | 22 | 18 (81.8) | Conservative management ± biliary drainage (ENBD, ERBD) | 0 (0.0) |
4 (18.2) | Surgery | 1 (25) | ||
Morgan et al[22] | 12 | 12 (100.0) | Conservative management | 0 (0.0) |
0 (0.0) | Surgery | 0 (0.0) | ||
Kim et al[59] | 9 | 8 (88.8) | Conservative management ± ENBD | 0 (0.0) |
1 (11.2) | Surgery | 0 (0.0) |
Ref. | Age/sex | ERCP indication | Abdominal CT scan | Stent indication | Type of stent/duration (d) |
Vezakis et al[28] | 61/F | Stones or sphincter of Oddi dysfunction | Retroperitoneal air | Duodenal fistula, Continuing leakage | Partially covered SEMS/14 |
Jeon et al[26] | 82/F | Stones | Retroperitoneal air and fluid | Continuing leakage | Fully covered SEMS/28 |
Canena et al[25] | 55/F | Stones | Retroperitoneal air and fluid | Perforation | Fully covered SEMS/21 |
29/F | Stones | Retroperitoneal air and fluid | Perforation | Fully covered SEMS/30 | |
31/M | Stones | Retroperitoneal air and fluid | Perforation | Fully covered SEMS/30 | |
76/F | Stones | Retroperitoneal air and fluid | Perforation | Fully covered SEMS/29 | |
Park et al[27] | 61/F | Biliary tree dilatation | Retroperitoneal air and fluid | Perforation | Fully covered SEMS/10 |
Unpublished | 46/M | Stones | Retroperitoneal air | Perforation | Fully covered SEMS/ spontaneously fell out |
- Citation: Lee SM, Cho KB. Value of temporary stents for the management of perivaterian perforation during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. World J Clin Cases 2014; 2(11): 689-697
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/2307-8960/full/v2/i11/689.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.12998/wjcc.v2.i11.689