Retrospective Cohort Study
Copyright ©The Author(s) 2019.
World J Clin Cases. Jan 6, 2019; 7(1): 10-18
Published online Jan 6, 2019. doi: 10.12998/wjcc.v7.i1.10
Table 1 Patient characteristics n (%)
ParametersValue (n = 187)
Age, median (range)72 (31-90)
Female sex,49 (26)
Surgical anatomy
Billroth-I22 (12)
Billroth-II33 (18)
Roux-en-Y54 (29)
Child or Whipple75 (40)
Others3 (2)
Cause of surgery
GU or DU30 (16)
Benign disease14 (7)
Benign tumor29 (16)
Malignant tumor107 (57)
N/A7 (4)
Table 2 Success rates for procedures n (%)
ParametersValue (n = 187)
Failure in reaching target site17 (9)
Failed procedure54 (29)
Procedure
ERCP23 (12)
Drainage43 (23)
Stone treatment29 (16)
Stricture dilation59 (32)
N/A33 (18)
Table 3 Incidence of adverse events n (%)
ParametersIncidence (n = 187)
Pancreatitis5 (3)
Hyperamylasemia19 (10)
Cholangitis12 (6)
Cholestasis7 (4)
Excessive sedation1 (1)
Perforation3 (2)
Others5 (3)
Total (no overlap)47 (25)
Table 4 Risk factors for perforation in all cases n (%)
ParametersnPerforationP value
Age (yr) ≥ 75682 (2.9)0.621
Female sex492 (4.1)0.345
Scope
DBE1081 (0.9)0.784
Other scope492 (4.1)0.345
Cause of surgery
malignancy1071 (0.9)1
Type of surgical anatomy
B-II333 (9.1)0.003
R-Y540 (0.0)0.638
Table 5 Risk factors for perforation in cases with Billroth-II reconstruction
nPerforationP value
Age (yr) ≥ 75252 (8)1
Female sex82 (25)0.14
L shape83 (37.5)0.01
Retrocolic reconstruction142 (14.3)0.56
Surgery by malignancy101 (10)0.34
Time to papilla (> 15 min.)143 (21.4)0.07
Table 6 Clinical characteristics of three perforated Billroth-II cases
CaseAgeSexDiagnosisIndication for an endoscopyReaching the target siteCause of surgeryTherapy of perforation
167FPancreatic cancerDrainageSuccessGastric cancerConservative
283MBiliary tract cancerDrainageFailureDuodenal ulcerOperation
382FCholedocholithiasisStone treatmentFailureN/AOperation