We have located links that may give you full text access.
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Retained common bile duct stones: a comparison between biliary stenting and complete clearance of stones by electrohydraulic lithotripsy.
Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics 2003 January
BACKGROUND: There is some uncertainty as to whether high-risk patients with difficult common bile duct stones should be subjected to a further endoscopic procedure for the complete removal of stones by electrohydraulic lithotripsy or whether permanent biliary stenting should be performed.
AIM: To compare the outcome of permanent biliary stenting with electrohydraulic lithotripsy in this group of patients.
METHODS: In a prospective study, 36 patients with difficult common bile duct stones were investigated: 19 underwent double pigtail insertion (stent group), whereas 17 underwent complete clearance of stones (electrohydraulic lithotripsy).
RESULTS: In the electrohydraulic lithotripsy group, successful stone clearance was achieved in 76.5%, whereas, in the stent group, the success of stenting was 94.7%. A significant difference was detected in the actuarial incidence of recurrent acute cholangitis when the electrohydraulic lithotripsy group was compared with the stent group [one patient (7.7%) vs. 12 patients (63.2%), respectively; P = 0.002, log rank test]. A significant difference was detected in the actuarial frequency of mortality between the electrohydraulic lithotripsy and stent groups [seven patients (41.2%) vs. 14 patients (73.7%), respectively; P = 0.01, log rank test].
CONCLUSIONS: The removal of difficult common bile duct stones by electrohydraulic lithotripsy and further endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography has a high success rate and a low complication rate even in the elderly.
AIM: To compare the outcome of permanent biliary stenting with electrohydraulic lithotripsy in this group of patients.
METHODS: In a prospective study, 36 patients with difficult common bile duct stones were investigated: 19 underwent double pigtail insertion (stent group), whereas 17 underwent complete clearance of stones (electrohydraulic lithotripsy).
RESULTS: In the electrohydraulic lithotripsy group, successful stone clearance was achieved in 76.5%, whereas, in the stent group, the success of stenting was 94.7%. A significant difference was detected in the actuarial incidence of recurrent acute cholangitis when the electrohydraulic lithotripsy group was compared with the stent group [one patient (7.7%) vs. 12 patients (63.2%), respectively; P = 0.002, log rank test]. A significant difference was detected in the actuarial frequency of mortality between the electrohydraulic lithotripsy and stent groups [seven patients (41.2%) vs. 14 patients (73.7%), respectively; P = 0.01, log rank test].
CONCLUSIONS: The removal of difficult common bile duct stones by electrohydraulic lithotripsy and further endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography has a high success rate and a low complication rate even in the elderly.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
The 'Ten Commandments' for the 2023 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for the management of endocarditis.European Heart Journal 2024 April 18
Challenges in Septic Shock: From New Hemodynamics to Blood Purification Therapies.Journal of Personalized Medicine 2024 Februrary 4
A Guide to the Use of Vasopressors and Inotropes for Patients in Shock.Journal of Intensive Care Medicine 2024 April 14
Prevention and treatment of ischaemic and haemorrhagic stroke in people with diabetes mellitus: a focus on glucose control and comorbidities.Diabetologia 2024 April 17
Diagnosis and Management of Cardiac Sarcoidosis: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.Circulation 2024 April 19
Eosinophilic Esophagitis: Clinical Pearls for Primary Care Providers and Gastroenterologists.Mayo Clinic Proceedings 2024 April
Essential thrombocythaemia: A contemporary approach with new drugs on the horizon.British Journal of Haematology 2024 April 9
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app