REAPPRAISAL OF SAFETY OF ENDOSCOPIC SPHINCTEROTOMY FOR COMMON BILE-DUCT STONES IN THE ELDERLY

被引:24
|
作者
DEENITCHIN, GP
KONOMI, H
KIMURA, H
OGAWA, Y
NARITOMI, G
CHIJIIWA, K
TANAKA, M
IKEDA, S
机构
[1] KYUSHU UNIV,FAC MED,DEPT SURG 1,FUKUOKA 812,JAPAN
[2] FUKUOKA UNIV,SCH MED,FUKUOKA 81401,JAPAN
来源
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SURGERY | 1995年 / 170卷 / 01期
关键词
D O I
10.1016/S0002-9610(99)80251-7
中图分类号
R61 [外科手术学];
学科分类号
摘要
BACKGROUND: Endoscopic sphincterotomy is the method of choice for elderly patients with common bile duct stones, even though these patients are poor operative risks, We undertook this study to analyze the operative risk factors for this age group, METHODS: We compared specific problems of 182 patients aged 80 years or older and 921 younger patients who underwent endoscopic sphincterotomy for common bile duct stones. RESULTS: Despite a higher frequency of periampullary diverticula in the elderly than in the younger patients (54% versus 36%, P <0.001), the success rates of sphincterotomy were not different, The elderly patients required lithotripsy more often than did the younger ones (15% versus 4%, P <0.001), and the necessity of stenting or nasobiliary drainage was greater in this group (9%) than in the younger group (5%, P <0.05), This difference in the tactics between the older and younger groups was due to the greater number and size of stones, longer period of time for complete clearance of the common bile duct (13.5 versus 6.0 days, P <0.01), and a greater percentage of patients with operative risks (55% versus 36%, P <0.001). The elderly also had significantly greater overall morbidity compared with the younger patients (13% versus 7%, P <0.005), frequency of acute cholangitis (8% versus 2%, P <0.001), and mortality (1% versus O%), CONCLUSION: These results suggest that frequent stenting or nasobiliary drainage to prevent cholangitis or prompt stone removal by lithotripsy would be necessary in this group of patients.
引用
收藏
页码:51 / 54
页数:4
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] PER ENDOSCOPIC SPHINCTEROTOMY - MINIMUM TRAUMA TECHNIQUE FOR REMOVAL OF RETAINED COMMON BILE-DUCT STONES
    CLARKE, AC
    ALI, MR
    NICHOLSON, GI
    NEW ZEALAND MEDICAL JOURNAL, 1978, 88 (618) : 142 - 143
  • [42] RECURRENT BROWN PIGMENT STONES IN THE COMMON BILE-DUCT - POSSIBLE CONTRIBUTION OF SURGICAL OR ENDOSCOPIC SPHINCTEROTOMY
    CETTA, F
    LOMBARDO, F
    CAPPELLI, A
    GASTROENTEROLOGY, 1994, 106 (04) : A335 - A335
  • [43] ENDOSCOPIC SPHINCTEROTOMY - A PROCEDURE OF CHOICE IN THE MANAGEMENT OF RETAINED COMMON BILE-DUCT STONES AND PAPILLARY STENOSIS
    WEITEMEYER, RA
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SURGERY, 1982, 143 (05): : 536 - 539
  • [44] GALL STONE INDEX - A PREDICTOR OF OUTCOME FOR COMMON BILE-DUCT STONES TREATED BY ENDOSCOPIC SPHINCTEROTOMY
    LAURI, A
    HORTON, RC
    BURROUGHS, AK
    DOOLEY, JS
    GUT, 1990, 31 (10) : A1216 - A1216
  • [45] Early complications of endoscopic sphincterotomy for common bile duct stones
    Imaizumi, Hiroshi
    Kida, Mitsuhiro
    Takezawa, Miyoko
    Kikuchi, Hidehiko
    Saigenji, Katsunori
    DIGESTIVE ENDOSCOPY, 2007, 19 : S57 - S59
  • [46] Endoscopic sphincterotomy for common bile duct stones in younger patients
    Pedersen, FM
    Lassen, AT
    de Muckadell, OBS
    DANISH MEDICAL BULLETIN, 1998, 45 (05): : 533 - 535
  • [47] LIMITATIONS OF THE ENDOSCOPIC REMOVAL OF COMMON BILE-DUCT STONES
    TYTGAT, GNJ
    HUIBREGTSE, K
    PROBLEMS IN GENERAL SURGERY, 1988, 5 (04): : 453 - 463
  • [48] ENDOSCOPIC ENDOPROSTHESIS FOR LARGE STONES IN THE COMMON BILE-DUCT
    KUBOTA, Y
    TAKAOKA, M
    FUJIMURA, K
    OGURA, M
    KIN, H
    YAMAMOTO, S
    TSUJI, K
    MIZUNO, T
    INOUE, K
    INTERNAL MEDICINE, 1994, 33 (10) : 597 - 601
  • [49] ENDOSCOPIC SPHINCTEROTOMY FOR BILE-DUCT STONES - AN INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW OF 272 PATIENTS
    BICKERSTAFF, KI
    BERRY, AR
    CHAPMAN, RW
    BRITTON, J
    ANNALS OF THE ROYAL COLLEGE OF SURGEONS OF ENGLAND, 1989, 71 (06) : 384 - 386
  • [50] VARIATIONS OF COMMON BILE-DUCT DIAMETER AFTER ENDOSCOPIC SPHINCTEROTOMY
    PERSSON, B
    OLSSON, J
    GASTROINTESTINAL RADIOLOGY, 1991, 16 (01): : 45 - 48