4.5 Article

ENDOSCOPIC SPHINCTEROTOMY ALONE IN THE MANAGEMENT OF LOW-GRADE BILIARY LEAKS DUE TO CHOLECYSTECTOMY

期刊

DIGESTIVE ENDOSCOPY
卷 21, 期 3, 页码 158-161

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL PUBLISHING, INC
DOI: 10.1111/j.1443-1661.2009.00878.x

关键词

cystic duct stump; endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography; endoscopic sphincterotomy; low-grade leak; postoperative biliary leak

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aim: Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is important in the diagnosis and management of postoperative bile leaks. Endoscopic sphincterotomy (ES) alone, ES with stent or nasobiliary drain (NBD) placement and stent or NBD without ES are the methods of choice. In the present study, we aimed to show the efficacy of ES alone in the management of low-grade (LGL) cystic duct stump (CDS) leaks due to cholecystectomy. Methods: Between September 2005 and January 2008, ES was carried out on 31 patients with LGL from the CDS due to cholecystectomy who were referred to the endoscopy unit of Izmir Ataturk Training and Research Hospital. Biliary leakage was detected by biliary discharge from a tube drain inserted during the operation. In cases of retaining common bile duct stones, balloon extraction was carried out. If bile discharge continued, a stent was introduced for cessation of the leak as a second procedure. Results: The success rate of ES alone was 87.1% (27 of 31 patients). In four patients (12.9%), ES alone was inadequate, therefore a stent was placed. The biliary leak ceased gradually and stopped in all patients at a mean of 11 (7-21) days. Balloon extraction of retained stones was carried out in six patients (19.6%). In two (6.5%) patients, mild hemorrhage and in two patients self-limited pancreatitis was seen (6.5%) as complications. Conclusion: Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography is essential in the management of postoperative biliary leaks. Endoscopic sphincterotomy alone can be the initial procedure in the treatment of LGL from the CDS due to 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

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