4.7 Article

Early ductal decompression versus conservative management for gallstone pancreatitis with ampullary obstruction - A prospective randomized clinical trial

期刊

ANNALS OF SURGERY
卷 243, 期 1, 页码 33-40

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/01.sla.0000194086.22580.92

关键词

-

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To compare the efficacy of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography +/- endoscopic sphincterotomy (ERCP +/- ES) versus traditional conservative management in early gallstone pancreatitis with persistent ampullary obstruction (GSP + AO). Summary Background Data: The effectiveness of early ERCP +/- ES in this setting is controversial. Methods: Sixty-one consecutive patients with GSP + AO within 48 hours from the onset of symptoms were randomized to receive either conservative treatment and selective ERCP +/- ES after 48 hours (control group, 31 patients) or initial conservative treatment and systematic ERCP +/- ES within 48 hours if obstruction persisted 24 hours or longer (study group, 30 patients). Patient outcome was compared in relation to treatment groups and to duration of obstruction. Results: In the control group, 22 patients disobstructed spontaneously within 48 hours; 3 of the remaining 9 patients underwent ERCP +/- ES and none had impacted stones. In the study group, 16 patients disobstructed spontaneously and 14 underwent ERCP within 48 hours from the onset of symptoms; impacted stones were found and extracted by ES in 79% (11 of 14) of these. Patients: There were no deaths in either group. Patients in the study group showed a shorter period of obstruction (P = 0.016) and a lower rate of immediate complications (P = 0.026) than controls. Patients with obstruction lasting <= 48 hours regardless of the treatment group had fewer immediate complications than those whose obstruction persisted longer (P < 0.001). Conclusions: This study shows that in patients with GSP + AO limiting the duration of obstruction to not longer than 48 hours by ERCP + ES decreased morbidity.

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

4.7
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