Takano S, Fukasawa M, Shindo H, Takahashi E, Hirose S, Fukasawa Y, Kawakami S, Hayakawa H, Yokomichi H, Kadokura M, Sato T, Enomoto N. Risk factors for perforation during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in post-reconstruction intestinal tract. World J Clin Cases 2019; 7(1): 10-18 [PMID: 30637248 DOI: 10.12998/wjcc.v7.i1.10]
Corresponding Author of This Article
Mitsuharu Fukasawa, MD, PhD, Lecturer, First Department of Internal Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Yamanashi, 1110, Shimokato, Chuo, Yamanashi 409-3898, Japan. fmitsu@yamanashi.ac.jp
Research Domain of This Article
Gastroenterology & Hepatology
Article-Type of This Article
Retrospective Cohort Study
Open-Access Policy of This Article
This article is an open-access article which was selected by an in-house editor and fully peer-reviewed by external reviewers. It is distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
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 (%)
Parameters
Value (n = 187)
Age, median (range)
72 (31-90)
Female sex,
49 (26)
Surgical anatomy
Billroth-I
22 (12)
Billroth-II
33 (18)
Roux-en-Y
54 (29)
Child or Whipple
75 (40)
Others
3 (2)
Cause of surgery
GU or DU
30 (16)
Benign disease
14 (7)
Benign tumor
29 (16)
Malignant tumor
107 (57)
N/A
7 (4)
Table 2 Success rates for procedures n (%)
Parameters
Value (n = 187)
Failure in reaching target site
17 (9)
Failed procedure
54 (29)
Procedure
ERCP
23 (12)
Drainage
43 (23)
Stone treatment
29 (16)
Stricture dilation
59 (32)
N/A
33 (18)
Table 3 Incidence of adverse events n (%)
Parameters
Incidence (n = 187)
Pancreatitis
5 (3)
Hyperamylasemia
19 (10)
Cholangitis
12 (6)
Cholestasis
7 (4)
Excessive sedation
1 (1)
Perforation
3 (2)
Others
5 (3)
Total (no overlap)
47 (25)
Table 4 Risk factors for perforation in all cases n (%)
Parameters
n
Perforation
P value
Age (yr) ≥ 75
68
2 (2.9)
0.621
Female sex
49
2 (4.1)
0.345
Scope
DBE
108
1 (0.9)
0.784
Other scope
49
2 (4.1)
0.345
Cause of surgery
malignancy
107
1 (0.9)
1
Type of surgical anatomy
B-II
33
3 (9.1)
0.003
R-Y
54
0 (0.0)
0.638
Table 5 Risk factors for perforation in cases with Billroth-II reconstruction
n
Perforation
P value
Age (yr) ≥ 75
25
2 (8)
1
Female sex
8
2 (25)
0.14
L shape
8
3 (37.5)
0.01
Retrocolic reconstruction
14
2 (14.3)
0.56
Surgery by malignancy
10
1 (10)
0.34
Time to papilla (> 15 min.)
14
3 (21.4)
0.07
Table 6 Clinical characteristics of three perforated Billroth-II cases
Case
Age
Sex
Diagnosis
Indication for an endoscopy
Reaching the target site
Cause of surgery
Therapy of perforation
1
67
F
Pancreatic cancer
Drainage
Success
Gastric cancer
Conservative
2
83
M
Biliary tract cancer
Drainage
Failure
Duodenal ulcer
Operation
3
82
F
Choledocholithiasis
Stone treatment
Failure
N/A
Operation
Citation: Takano S, Fukasawa M, Shindo H, Takahashi E, Hirose S, Fukasawa Y, Kawakami S, Hayakawa H, Yokomichi H, Kadokura M, Sato T, Enomoto N. Risk factors for perforation during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in post-reconstruction intestinal tract. World J Clin Cases 2019; 7(1): 10-18