4.6 Article

Chronic pancreatitis in Chinese children: Etiology, clinical presentation and imaging diagnosis

Journal

JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY AND HEPATOLOGY
Volume 24, Issue 12, Pages 1862-1868

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1440-1746.2009.05967.x

Keywords

children; chronic pancreatitis; clinical presentation; etiology; imaging diagnosis

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background and Aims: There is a paucity of literature regarding the clinical profile of chronic pancreatitis (CP) in children. The aims of this retrospective study were to determine the etiology and clinical presentation, and to present our experience in diagnosing CP in children in China. Methods: Clinical data of children who were treated for CP at Changhai Hospital from January 1997 to August 2006 were reviewed. Results: A total of 427 CP patients presented to our center. There were 42 (9.8%) children with CP, including 21 males and 21 females, with a mean age of 11.7 years at the first onset. The main etiological factor was idiopathic (73.8%). Of the patients, 78.5% had episodes of mild to moderate abdominal pain and 54.8% had multiple (>= 4) episodes. The mean duration of symptoms prior to the diagnosis was 41.6 months and a definite diagnosis was not made until 2 years later in 57.1% of these patients. The positive rates of ultrasound (US), computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) (or magnetic resonance imaging [MRI]) for detecting ductal changes and intraductal stones or pancreatic calcification were 51.4% and 45.4%, 71.4% and 87.5%, 80.0% and 61.5%, respectively. Conclusion: The main etiological factor of Chinese children with CP is idiopathic. The main symptom in these patients is multiple episodes of mild to moderate abdominal pain, which often lead to a delay in the definite diagnosis. CT and MRCP (or MRI) should be used as the first investigation in the evaluation of these cases.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available