Search

Your search keyword '"Endoscopic papillary large-balloon dilation"' showing total 3 results
Start Over Descriptor "Endoscopic papillary large-balloon dilation" Topic cholangiopancreatography, endoscopic retrograde
3 results on '"Endoscopic papillary large-balloon dilation"'

1. Endoscopic papillary large-balloon dilation versus endoscopic papillary regular-balloon dilation for removal of large bile-duct stones.

Author

Fujisawa T, Kagawa K, Hisatomi K, Kubota K, Nakajima A, and Matsuhashi N

Subjects
Academic Medical Centers, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Cohort Studies, Dilatation methods, Endoscopy, Digestive System methods, Equipment Design, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Japan, Male, Middle Aged, Multivariate Analysis, Retrospective Studies, Severity of Illness Index, Treatment Outcome, Cholangiopancreatography, Endoscopic Retrograde methods, Dilatation instrumentation, Gallstones diagnosis, Gallstones therapy
Abstract

Background: Endoscopic papillary large-balloon dilation (EPLBD) became popular for the treatment of large common bile-duct stones (CBDS), and its feasibility has been reported in comparison to endoscopic sphincterotomy. However, the comparison between EPLBD and endoscopic papillary regular-balloon dilation (EPBD) has not been reported. In the present study, the efficacy and complications of EPLBD were compared with those of EPBD., Methods: We retrospectively assessed 334 consecutive patients with CBDS of any size that were treated by either EPLBD or EPBD between January 2008 and December 2012., Results: In cases with large CBDS (>10 mm), EPLBD and EPBD had similar results in terms of the success rate of stone removal in the first (65% vs. 84%) and total attempts (100% vs. 95%), use of mechanical lithotripter (64% vs. 80%), and procedure time (48.0 ± 17.8 min vs. 44.1 ± 17.1 min). The necessity for crushing stones with a mechanical lithotripter was significantly decreased in EPLBD compared to EPBD (25% vs. 80%). In all cases with CBDS, there was no significant difference in complication rates between EPLBD and EPBD (3.3% vs. 4.7%)., Conclusions: Compared to EPBD, EPLBD appears safe and effective for removing large CBDS and decreases the necessity of lithotripsy., (© 2013 Japanese Society of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Surgery.)

Published
2014
Full Text
View/download PDF

2. Post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis caused by papillary large-balloon dilation of incidental intrapapillary fistula in Roux-en-Y patients: lesson from a case.

Author

Ishii K, Itoi T, Itokawa F, Tsuchiya T, and Sofuni A

Subjects
Anastomosis, Roux-en-Y methods, Cholangiopancreatography, Endoscopic Retrograde methods, Choledocholithiasis diagnosis, Dilatation instrumentation, Dilatation methods, Follow-Up Studies, Gastrectomy methods, Humans, Incidental Findings, Male, Middle Aged, Pancreatic Fistula diagnostic imaging, Pancreatitis diagnostic imaging, Tomography, X-Ray Computed methods, Cholangiopancreatography, Endoscopic Retrograde adverse effects, Choledocholithiasis surgery, Endoscopy, Digestive System methods, Pancreatic Fistula etiology, Pancreatitis etiology
Abstract

Endoscopic papillary large-balloon dilation (EPLBD) has been popular worldwide for difficult stones. At the primary stage, EPLBD is done immediately after endoscopic sphincterotomy (ES) or after previous ES. Recently, several endoscopists have reported the feasibility and safety of EPLBD without ES and post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis (PEP) as adverse events. Herein, we encountered a case of PEP in which EPLBD was carried out through a spontaneous fistula in the papillary roof, although there was no manipulation of the pancreatic duct. We learned a lesson from the present case in which possible PEP might occur during the procedure of EPLBD without ES., (© 2014 The Authors. Digestive Endoscopy © 2014 Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society.)

Published
2014
Full Text
View/download PDF

3. Comparison of the usefulness of endoscopic papillary large-balloon dilation with endoscopic sphincterotomy for large and multiple common bile duct stones

Author

Misako Tsubouchi, Kouhei Tsuchida, Mari Iwasaki, Tsunehiro Suzuki, Naoto Yoshitake, Hideyuki Hiraishi, Chieko Tsuchida, and Takako Sasai

Subjects
Male, medicine.medical_specialty, medicine.medical_treatment, Lithotripsy, Sphincterotomy, Endoscopic, Postoperative Complications, Endoscopic papillary large-balloon dilation, Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, Internal medicine, medicine, Humans, Common bile duct stone, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Cholangiopancreatography, Endoscopic Retrograde, Common bile duct, medicine.diagnostic_test, Bile duct, business.industry, Gastroenterology, food and beverages, General Medicine, Hepatology, medicine.disease, Combined Modality Therapy, Dilatation, Surgery, Choledocholithiasis, Treatment Outcome, medicine.anatomical_structure, Balloon dilation, Pancreatitis, Female, Complication, business, Research Article
Abstract

Background Endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) is currently recognized as the primary endoscopic treatment for common bile duct stones. However, it is difficult to remove multiple (≥3) or large (≥15 mm) common bile duct stones with EST alone. Recently, EST plus endoscopic papillary large-balloon dilation (EPLBD) was reported to be an effective treatment for such bile duct stones. We compared the results of EST and EST + EPLBD for multiple (≥3) or large (≥15 mm) stones that were difficult to treat using EST alone. We also compared the complication rates between the techniques. Methods Seventy patients with large (largest diameter, ≥15 mm) or ≥ 3 common bile duct stones treated in our department between April 2010 and March 2013 underwent EST + EPLBD (n = 34) or EST alone (n = 36). We compared final successful stone removal rates, rates of successful stone removal in the first session, procedure times, status of concurrent mechanical lithotripsy (ML), and complications between the EST + EPLBD and EST groups. Results The rates of final successful stone removal were similar between the two groups (EST + EPLBD: 100 % vs. EST: 89 %; p = 0.115). The rate of successful stone removal in the first session was significantly higher in the EST + EPLBD group (EST + EPLBD: 88 % vs. EST: 56 %; p = 0.03). Moreover, the procedure time was significantly shorter (EST + EPLBD: 42 min vs. EST: 67 min; p = 0.011) and the rate of ML use was significantly lower in the EST + EPLBD group (EST + EPLBD: 50 % vs. EST: 94 %; p

Published
2015
Full Text
View/download PDF

Catalog

Books, media, physical & digital resources
See catalog results