http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
( Yuji Fujita ),( Akito Iwasaki ),( Takamitsu Sato ),( Toshio Fujisawa ),( Yusuke Sekino ),( Kunihiro Hosono ),( Nobuyuki Matsuhashi ),( Kentaro Sakamaki ),( Atsushi Nakajima ),( Kensuke Kubota ) 대한소화기학회 2017 Gut and Liver Vol.11 No.1
Background/Aims: There is no consensus for using endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation (EPLBD) in patients without dilatation of the lower part of the bile duct (DLBD). We evaluated the feasibility and safety of EPLBD for the removal of difficult bile duct stones (diameter ≥10 mm) in patients without DLBD. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the records of 209 patients who underwent EPLBD for the removal of bile duct stones from October 2009 to July 2014. Primary outcomes were the clearance rate and additional mechanical lithotripsy. Secondary outcomes were the incidence of complications and recurrence rate. Results: Fiftyseven patients had DLBD (27.3%), and 152 did not have DLBD (72.7%). There were no significant differences in the overall success rate or the use of mechanical lithotripsy. Success rate during the first session and procedure time were better in the DLBD than the without-DLBD group (75.7% vs 66.7%, 48.1±23.0 minutes vs 58.4±31.7 minutes, respectively). As for complications, there were no significant differences in the incidence of pancreatitis, perforation or bleeding after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. The recurrence rate did not differ significantly between the two groups. Conclusions: EPLBD is a useful and safe method for common bile duct stone removal in patients without DLBD. (Gut Liver 2017;11:149-155)
Clinical outcomes of permanent stenting with endoscopic ultrasound gallbladder drainage
Eisuke Suzuki,Yuji Fujita,Kunihiro Hosono,Yuji Koyama,Seitaro Tsujino,Takuma Teratani,Atsushi Nakajima,Nobuyuki Matsuhashi 대한소화기내시경학회 2023 Clinical Endoscopy Vol.56 No.5
Background/Aims: Endoscopic ultrasound gallbladder drainage (EUS-GBD) is gaining attention as a treatment method for cholecystitis. However, only a few studies have assessed the outcomes of permanent stenting with EUS-GBD. Therefore, we evaluated the clinicaloutcomes of permanent stenting using EUS-GBD. Methods: This was a retrospective, single-center cohort study. The criteria for EUS-GBD at our institution are a high risk for surgery,inability to perform surgery owing to poor performance status, and inability to obtain consent for emergency surgery. EUS-GBD wasperformed using a 7-Fr double-pigtail plastic stent with a dilating device. The primary outcomes were the recurrence-free rate of cholecystitisand the late-stage complication-avoidance rate. Secondary outcomes were technical success, clinical success, and procedural adverseevents. Results: A total of 41 patients were included in the analysis. The median follow-up period was 168 (range, 10–1,238) days. The recurrence-free and late-stage complication-avoidance rates during the follow-up period were 95% (38 cases) and 90% (36 cases), respectively. There were only two cases of cholecystitis recurrence during the study period. Conclusions: EUS-GBD using double-pigtail plastic stent was safe and effective with few complications, even in the long term, in patientswith acute cholecystitis.