3.8 Article

Endoscopic plastic stent therapy for bile leaks following total vs subtotal cholecystectomy

期刊

ENDOSCOPY INTERNATIONAL OPEN
卷 8, 期 12, 页码 E1895-E1899

出版社

GEORG THIEME VERLAG KG
DOI: 10.1055/a-1300-1319

关键词

-

资金

  1. NCATS/NIH [UL1 TR000445]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and study aims Plastic biliary stents are standard therapy for treatment of post-cholecystectomy bile leaks. An increasing proportion of patients now undergo subtotal cholecystectomy and are at perceived risk for high-grade bile leak. Data are limited regarding the optimal endoscopic therapy following subtotal cholecystectomy. The aim of this study was to compare outcomes of endoscopic plastic stent therapy for treatment of bile leak following total vs subtotal cholecystectomy. Patients and methods A retrospective cohort of patients with bile leak following cholecystectomy and treated with biliary stent was identified from an institutional database. Primary outcome was defined as cholangiographic resolution of leak at follow-up endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Results Sixty-one subjects met study inclusion criteria, 27 following total cholecystectomy and 34 following subtotal cholecystectomy. A single plastic biliary stent was placed in 87% of subjects (53/61), while a fully covered self-expanding metal stent (FCSEMS) was placed in 13% (8/61). Leak resolution was evident at first follow-up ERCP in 96% of subjects (26/27) who had undergone total cholecystectomy and 91% of subjects (31/34) who had undergone subtotal cholecystectomy (P = 0.25). Among subjects who had received a plastic stent at index ERCP, leak resolution was evident at first follow-up ERCP in 96% (23/24) of those who had undergone total cholecystectomy and 90% (26/29) of those who had undergone subtotal cholecystectomy (P = 0.62). Conclusions High rates of leak resolution can be achieved with placement of a single plastic biliary stent for treatment of post-cholecystectomy bile leaks, including after subtotal cholecystectomy.

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

3.8
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