English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

BACKGROUND Although stenting for the treatment of large and multiple common bile duct stones has been acceptable to everyone, its efficacy and outcome have not been studied in comparison with other endoscopic procedures. The purpose of this study was to compare the consequences of stenting and endoscopic papilla balloon dilatation for the treatment of large and multiple common bile duct stones. METHODS In a double-blind clinical trial, of 431 patients with bile duct stones referred to the treatment center, 64 patients with multiple common bile duct stones ( ≥ 3) and more than 15 cm were selected for the study, then by random allocation rule the participants were allocated in two groups. They were entered into two different endoscopic papillary balloon dilatation (EPBD) and common bile ducts stenting treatments so that both procedures were performed by a person. Both groups were assessed from the point of views therapeutic outcomes such as duct cleaning, pancreatitis, isolated pain, and duct rupture. Data were collected by a self-made questionnaire that was used before and after the procedure to obtain the needed information. Then data were analyzed using SPSS software version 22 and descriptive and analytical tests were used as appropriated. RESULTS Although the duct cleaning and the complete removal of the stones in the stenting treatment procedure was 93.8%, and in EPBD was 78.3%, no significant difference was observed between the two groups ( p = 0.14). Pancreatitis significantly increased after the first and second endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in the stent group compared with EPBD ( p = 0.02). Also, the most frequent cases of isolated pain were in the endoscopic group EPBD ( p = 0.0). However, the occurrence of perforation after first ERCP and EPBD was zero, but in the second stage of ERCP, 3.3% of the patients had perforations ( p = 0.99). The results indicated that the shape of the stone (circular and angled) was not effective in the result of treatment in the two groups. CONCLUSION The results of this study indicated that in case of experience and skill in conducting the ERCP, common bile duct stenting is still the first line of treatment for large and multiple stones of the common bile ducts.

Consequences of Stenting and Endoscopic Papillary Balloon Dilatation in Treatment of Large and Multiple Common Bile Duct Stones