Author:
Shi Ding,Guo Sihang,Bao Yinsu,Wang Qingzhi,Pan Weijin
Abstract
Abstract
Background
The management of type II endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP)-related perforation is still controversial. This study aimed to compare the effects of covered self-expandable metallic stent (SEMS), surgery, and conservative treatment for type II perforation.
Methods
From January 2010 to December 2021, this study collected relevant data from five large hospitals in China. The data of ERCP difficulty grading and ERCP-related perforation in 26,673 cases that underwent ERCP during 11 years were retrospectively analyzed. Of 55 patients with type II perforation, 41 patients were implanted with a biliary covered SEMS (stent group), 10 underwent surgery (surgery group), and 4 received conservative treatment (conservative group).
Results
Among the 55 patients with type II perforation, ERCP and computed tomography diagnostic rates of type II perforation were 10.91% (6/55) and 89.09% (49/55), respectively. The incidence of type II perforation in grade 5 ERCP (0.43%, 11/2,537) was significantly higher than that in grade 1–3 ERCP (0.16%, 32/19,471). (P = 0.004) and grade 1–4 ERCP (0.26%,12/4,665) (P = 0.008), respectively. Among the 10 patients in the surgical group, primary repair was performed in only 7 patients in whom location of the perforation could be identified. The incidence of retroperitoneal abscess was significantly lower in the stent group than in the surgery group (P = 0.018) and the conservative group (P = 0.001), respectively. The average hospital stay in the stent group was shorter than that in the surgery group (P = 0.000) and conservative group (P = 0.001), respectively.
Conclusions
The incidence of type II perforation was dependent on the degree of difficulty of ERCP. The treatment of type II perforation with a covered SEMS can significantly reduce the incidence of retroperitoneal abscess and shorten the hospital stay, with better results than surgical and conservative treatments.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference30 articles.
1. Johnson KD, Perisetti A, Tharian B, Thandassery R, Jamidar P, Goyal H, et al. Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography-Related complications and their management strategies: a scoping literature review. Dig Dis Sci. 2020;65:361–75.
2. Khoury T, Mari A, Sbeit W. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography related perforations: is there plenty to discover? Minerva Gastroenterol (Torino). 2021;67:273–5.
3. Jiménez Cubedo E, López Monclús J, Lucena de la Poza JL, González Alcolea N, Calvo Espino P, García Pavia A, et al. Review of duodenal perforations after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in Hospital Puerta De Hierro from 1999 to 2014. Rev Esp Enferm Dig. 2018;110:515–9.
4. Patil NS, Solanki N, Mishra PK, Sharma BC, Saluja SS. ERCP-related perforation: an analysis of operative outcomes in a large series over 12 years. Surg Endosc. 2020;34:77–87.
5. Saito H, Kadono Y, Shono T, Kamikawa K, Urata A, Nasu J, et al. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography-related complications for bile duct stones in asymptomatic and symptomatic patients. JGH Open. 2021;5:1382–90.