Search

Objectives: The aim of this study was to determine patient reported burdensome experiences and research interests in children with acute recurrent pancreatitis or chronic pancreatitis and their families., Methods: Children with pancreatitis and their families completed a web-based survey. Subject prioritized rankings of symptoms or quality of life issues and topics for future research were assessed. Data are presented as family and children scores., Results: Among 80 participants, 18 were children with pancreatitis and 62 were family members. Top 5 ranked symptoms or quality of life issues were:1) pain, 2) fatigue, 3) missing school, 4) upset stomach, and 5) not knowing when an attack will occur. Top 5 ranked future research topics were:1) how to prevent a pancreatitis attack, 2) how pancreatitis affects other parts of the body, 3) ways to treat or handle pain, 4) what is the cause of pancreatitis, and 5) teach doctors about pancreatitis., Conclusions: This study highlights the importance of patient and family input in caring for children with pancreatitis. The most bothersome symptoms were pain, fatigue and upset stomach. Children with pancreatitis and families would like future research to primarily focus on prevention of pancreatitis attacks, pain therapy, and complications of pancreatitis., Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interest and Source of Funding: Conflicts of Interest: M. Lowe is a consultant for the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation and receives royalties from Millipore Inc. and UpToDate. A. Uc is a consultant for the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation and Abbvie Inc. The remaining authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background & Aims: It is not clear whether digital single-operator cholangioscopy (D-SOC) with electrohydraulic and laser lithotripsy is effective in removal of difficult biliary stones. We investigated the safety and efficacy of D-SOC with electrohydraulic and laser lithotripsy in an international, multicenter study of patients with difficult biliary stones., Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of 407 patients (60.4% female; mean age, 64.2 years) who underwent D-SOC for difficult biliary stones at 22 tertiary centers in the United States, United Kingdom, or Korea from February 2015 through December 2016; 306 patients underwent electrohydraulic lithotripsy and 101 (24.8%) underwent laser lithotripsy. Univariate and multivariable analyses were performed to identify factors associated with technical failure and the need for more than 1 D-SOC electrohydraulic or laser lithotripsy session to clear the bile duct., Results: The mean procedure time was longer in the electrohydraulic lithotripsy group (73.9 minutes) than in the laser lithotripsy group (49.9 minutes; P < .001). Ducts were completely cleared (technical success) in 97.3% of patients (96.7% of patients with electrohydraulic lithotripsy vs 99% patients with laser lithotripsy; P = .31). Ducts were cleared in a single session in 77.4% of patients (74.5% by electrohydraulic lithotripsy and 86.1% by laser lithotripsy; P = .20). Electrohydraulic or laser lithotripsy failed in 11 patients (2.7%); 8 patients were treated by surgery. Adverse events occurred in 3.7% patients and the stone was incompletely removed from 6.6% of patients. On multivariable analysis, difficult anatomy or cannulation (duodenal diverticula or altered anatomy) correlated with technical failure (odds ratio, 5.18; 95% confidence interval, 1.26-21.2; P = .02). Procedure time increased odds of more than 1 session of D-SOC electrohydraulic or laser lithotripsy (odds ratio, 1.02; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.03; P < .001)., Conclusions: In a multicenter, international, retrospective analysis, we found D-SOC with electrohydraulic or laser lithotripsy to be effective and safe in more than 95% of patients with difficult biliary stones. Fewer than 5% of patients require additional treatment with surgery and/or extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy to clear the duct., (Copyright © 2018 AGA Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)