AIM: To describe characteristics of a poorly expandable (PE) common bile duct (CBD) with stones on endoscopic retrograde cholangiography.METHODS: A PE bile duct was characterized by a rigid and relatively narrowed distal CBD with retrograde dilatation of the non-PE segment. Between 2003 and 2006, endoscopic retrograde cholangiography (ERC) images and chart reviews of 1213 patients with newly diagnosed CBD stones were obtained from the computer database of Therapeutic Endoscopic Center in Chang Gung Memorial Hospital. Patients with characteristic PE bile duct on ERC were identified from the database. Data of the patients as well as the safety and technical success of therapeutic ERC were collected and analyzed retrospectively.RESULTS: A total of 30 patients with CBD stones and characteristic PE segments were enrolled in this study. The median patient age was 45 years (range, 20 to 92 years); 66.7% of the patients were men. The diameters of the widest non-PE CBD segment, the PE segment, and the largest stone were 14.3 ± 4.9 mm, 5.8 ± 1.6 mm, and 11.2 ± 4.7 mm, respectively. The length of the PE segment was 39.7 ± 15.4 mm (range, 12.3 mm to 70.9 mm). To remove the CBD stone(s) completely, mechanical lithotripsy was required in 25 (83.3%) patients even though the stone size was not as large as were the difficult stones that have been described in the literature. The stone size and stone/PE segment diameter ratio were associated with the need for lithotripsy. Post-ERC complications occurred in 4 cases: pancreatitis in 1, cholangitis in 2, and an impacted Dormia basket with cholangitis in 1. Two (6.7%) of the 28 patients developed recurrent CBD stones at follow-up (50 ± 14 mo) and were successfully managed with therapeutic ERC.CONCLUSION: Patients with a PE duct frequently require mechanical lithotripsy for stones extraction. To retrieve stones successfully and avoid complications, these patients should be identified during ERC. 相似文献
AbstractGall stone ileus is a rare serious complication of cholelithiasis. We report a case of cholecystoduodenal fistula presenting as gall stone ileus with acute kidney injury which was managed successfully. 相似文献
Introduction: Approximately 10–15% of bile duct stones cannot be treated using conventional stone removal techniques. For difficult common bile duct stones (CBDS), various endoscopic techniques have been developed. This review covers technical tips and endoscopic treatments including Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), particularly under Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) guidance.
Areas covered: Literatures about endoscopic treatment for bile duct stone were searched in Pub Med. As novel methods, EUS-guided approaches have also been reported, although long-term results and prospective evaluation are not yet sufficient. Large stones may need fragmentation prior to removal, to prevent stone impaction. To perform fragmentation, mechanical lithotripsy, extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy or laser lithotripsy techniques are available.
Expert commentary: Despite the fact that most bile duct stones can be treated using endoscopic techniques, endoscopists should remind to be able to select the temporary biliary stenting or percutaneous transhepatic cholangiodrainage as an option. 相似文献
Background:Common bile duct stone (CBDS) is typically manifested with abdominal pain, chills, fever, and jaundice. Laparoscopic transcystic common bile duct exploration (LTCBDE) and endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) are currently the main minimally invasive methods for the treatment of CBDS. However, there are few studies about the differences of medium and long-term complication after EST or LTCBDE. Therefore, we will conduct a meta-analysis and systematic review to systematically evaluate the difference of medium and long-term complications between EST and LTCBDE against CBDS.Methods:Randomized controlled trials of EST or LTCBDE against CBDS will be searched in several English and Chinese databases with the following vocabularies: “laparoscopic transcystic common bile duct exploration,” “endoscopic sphincterotomy,” “choledocholithiasis,” “common bile duct stone” until December, 2020. Two reviewers will independently conduct the literature extraction, risk of bias assessment, and statistical analysis.Results and Conclusions:The study will help to systematically evaluate the difference of medium and long-term complication between EST and LTCBDE against CBDS.OSF Registration number:DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/5U7SA. 相似文献
Urolithiasis is a common condition in the U.S. Patients frequently present to the emergency department (ED) for care, including analgesia and treatments to facilitate stone passage.
Objective
With the new evidence concerning the evaluation and treatment of urolithiasis, this review summarizes current literature regarding the ED management of urolithiasis.
Discussion
Urolithiasis occurs primarily through supersaturation of urine and commonly presents with flank pain, hematuria, and nausea/vomiting. History, examination, and assessment with several laboratory tests are cornerstones of evaluation. Urinalysis is not diagnostic, but it may be used in association with other assessments. Risk assessment tools and advanced imaging can assist with diagnosis. Computed tomography (CT) is often considered the gold standard. Newer low-dose CT imaging may reduce radiation. Recent studies support ultrasound as an alternate diagnostic modality, especially in pediatric and pregnant patients. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs remain first-line therapy, with opioids or intravenous lidocaine reserved for refractory pain. Tamsulosin can increase passage in larger stones but has not demonstrated benefit in smaller stones. Nifedipine and intravenous fluids are not recommended to facilitate passage. Surgical intervention is based upon stone size, duration, and modifying factors. Patients who are discharged should be advised on dietary changes.
Conclusion
Urolithiasis is a common disease increasing in prevalence with the potential for significant morbidity. Focused evaluation with history, examination, and testing is important in diagnosis and management. Understanding the clinical features, risk assessment tools, imaging options, and treatment options can assist emergency physicians in the management of urolithiasis. 相似文献