Copyright
©The Author(s) 2019.
World J Clin Cases. Jan 6, 2019; 7(1): 10-18
Published online Jan 6, 2019. doi: 10.12998/wjcc.v7.i1.10
Published online Jan 6, 2019. doi: 10.12998/wjcc.v7.i1.10
Table 1 Patient characteristics n (%)
Parameters | Value (n = 187) | |
Age, median (range) | 72 (31-90) | |
Female sex, | 49 (26) | |
Surgical anatomy | ||
Billroth-I | 22 (12) | |
Billroth-II | 33 (18) | |
Roux-en-Y | 54 (29) | |
Child or Whipple | 75 (40) | |
Others | 3 (2) | |
Cause of surgery | ||
GU or DU | 30 (16) | |
Benign disease | 14 (7) | |
Benign tumor | 29 (16) | |
Malignant tumor | 107 (57) | |
N/A | 7 (4) |
Table 2 Success rates for procedures n (%)
Parameters | Value (n = 187) | |
Failure in reaching target site | 17 (9) | |
Failed procedure | 54 (29) | |
Procedure | ||
ERCP | 23 (12) | |
Drainage | 43 (23) | |
Stone treatment | 29 (16) | |
Stricture dilation | 59 (32) | |
N/A | 33 (18) |
Table 3 Incidence of adverse events n (%)
Parameters | Incidence (n = 187) |
Pancreatitis | 5 (3) |
Hyperamylasemia | 19 (10) |
Cholangitis | 12 (6) |
Cholestasis | 7 (4) |
Excessive sedation | 1 (1) |
Perforation | 3 (2) |
Others | 5 (3) |
Total (no overlap) | 47 (25) |
Table 4 Risk factors for perforation in all cases n (%)
Parameters | n | Perforation | P value | |
Age (yr) ≥ 75 | 68 | 2 (2.9) | 0.621 | |
Female sex | 49 | 2 (4.1) | 0.345 | |
Scope | ||||
DBE | 108 | 1 (0.9) | 0.784 | |
Other scope | 49 | 2 (4.1) | 0.345 | |
Cause of surgery | ||||
malignancy | 107 | 1 (0.9) | 1 | |
Type of surgical anatomy | ||||
B-II | 33 | 3 (9.1) | 0.003 | |
R-Y | 54 | 0 (0.0) | 0.638 |
Table 5 Risk factors for perforation in cases with Billroth-II reconstruction
n | Perforation | P value | |
Age (yr) ≥ 75 | 25 | 2 (8) | 1 |
Female sex | 8 | 2 (25) | 0.14 |
L shape | 8 | 3 (37.5) | 0.01 |
Retrocolic reconstruction | 14 | 2 (14.3) | 0.56 |
Surgery by malignancy | 10 | 1 (10) | 0.34 |
Time to papilla (> 15 min.) | 14 | 3 (21.4) | 0.07 |
Table 6 Clinical characteristics of three perforated Billroth-II cases
Case | Age | Sex | Diagnosis | Indication for an endoscopy | Reaching the target site | Cause of surgery | Therapy of perforation |
1 | 67 | F | Pancreatic cancer | Drainage | Success | Gastric cancer | Conservative |
2 | 83 | M | Biliary tract cancer | Drainage | Failure | Duodenal ulcer | Operation |
3 | 82 | F | Choledocholithiasis | Stone treatment | Failure | N/A | Operation |
- Citation: Takano S, Fukasawa M, Shindo H, Takahashi E, Hirose S, Fukasawa Y, Kawakami S, Hayakawa H, Yokomichi H, Kadokura M, Sato T, Enomoto N. Risk factors for perforation during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in post-reconstruction intestinal tract. World J Clin Cases 2019; 7(1): 10-18
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/2307-8960/full/v7/i1/10.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.12998/wjcc.v7.i1.10