4.5 Article

Changing pattern of indications of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in children and adolescents: a twelve-year experience

期刊

WORLD JOURNAL OF PEDIATRICS
卷 11, 期 2, 页码 154-159

出版社

ZHEJIANG UNIV SCH MEDICINE
DOI: 10.1007/s12519-014-0518-5

关键词

adolescents; cholangiopancreatography; endoscopic retrograde

资金

  1. FIPE - Hospital de Clinicas de Porto Alegre

向作者/读者索取更多资源

There are few data regarding endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) usefulness in children and adolescents. We reviewed the long-term experience with diagnostic and therapeutic ERCP in a tertiary single center in Southern Brazil. A retrospective chart review of patients aged 0-18 years who had undergone ERCPs from January 2000 to June 2012 was done. Data on demographics, indications, diagnosis, treatments, and complications were collected. Seventy-five ERCPs were performed in 60 patients. The median age of the patients at the procedure was 13.9 years (range: 1.2-17.9). Of the 60 patients, 47 (78.3%) were girls. Of all ERCPs, 48 (64.0%) were performed in patients above 10 years and 35 (72.9%) of them were in girls. ERCP was indicated for patients with bile duct obstruction (49.3%), sclerosing cholangitis (18.7%), post-surgery complication (12%), biliary stent (10.7%), choledochal cyst (5.3%), and pancreatitis (4%). The complication rate of ERCP was 9.7% involving mild bleeding, pancreatitis and cholangitis. Patients who had therapeutic procedures were older (13.7 +/- 3.9 vs. 9.9 +/- 4.9 years; P=0.001) and had more extrahepatic biliary abnormalities (82% vs. 50%; P=0.015) than those who had diagnostic ERCPs. A marked change in the indications of ERCPs was found, i.e., from 2001 to 2004, indications were more diagnostic and from 2005 therapeutic procedures were predominant. Diagnostic ERCPs are being replaced by magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography and also by endoscopic ultrasound. All these procedures are complementary and ERCP still has a role for therapeutic purposes.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据