COMPARATIVE STUDY
JOURNAL ARTICLE
RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL

Nasobiliary drainage after endoscopic papillary balloon dilatation may prevent postoperative pancreatitis

Xiao-Dan Xu, Jian-Jun Dai, Jian-Qing Qian, Wei-Jun Wang
World Journal of Gastroenterology: WJG 2015 February 28, 21 (8): 2443-9
25741153

AIM: To evaluate the necessity of endoscopic nasobiliary drainage (ENBD) catheter placement after clearance of common bile duct (CBD) stones.

METHODS: Patients enrolled in this study were randomly divided into two groups, according to whether or not they received ENBD after the removal of CBD stones. Group 1 (ENBD group) was then subdivided into three groups: G1a patients received an endoscopic papillary balloon dilatation (EPBD), G1b patients received an endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST), and G1c patients received neither. Group 2 (non-ENBD group) patients were also subdivided into three groups (G2a, G2b, and G2c), similar to Group 1. The maximum CBD diameter, the time for C-reactive protein (CRP) to normalize, levels of serum amylase, total serum bilirubin (TB) and alanine aminotransferase (ALT), and postoperative hospitalization duration (PHD) were measured.

RESULTS: A total of 218 patients (139 males, 79 females), with an average age of 60.1±10.8 years, were enrolled in this study. One hundred and thirteen patients who received ENBD were included in Group 1, and 105 patients who did not receive ENBD were included in Group 2. The baseline clinical characteristics were similar in both groups. There were no significant differences in post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP)-related complications when Groups 1 and 2 were compared. Seventy-seven patients underwent EPBD, and 41 received an ENBD tube (G1a) and 36 did not (G2a). Seventy-three patients underwent EST, and 34 patients received an ENBD tube (G1b) and 39 did not (G2b). The remaining 68 patients underwent neither EPBD nor EST; of these patients, 38 received an ENBD tube (G1c) and 30 did not (G2c). For each of the three pairs of subgroups (G1a vs G2a, G1b vs G2b, G1c vs G2c), there were no significant differences detected in the PHD or the time to normalization of CRP, TB and ALT. In the EPBD group, the incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis, hyperamylasemia and overall patient complications was significantly higher for G2a (post-ERCP pancreatitis: 6/36 vs 0/41, P=0.0217; hyperamylasemia: 11/36 vs 4/41, P=0.0215; overall patient complications: 18/36 vs 7/41, P=0.0029).

CONCLUSION: After successful CBD stone clearance, ENBD is only beneficial when an EPBD procedure has been performed.

Full Text Links

Find Full Text Links for this Article

Discussion

You are not logged in. Sign Up or Log In to join the discussion.

Related Papers

Remove bar
Read by QxMD icon Read
25741153
×

Save your favorite articles in one place with a free QxMD account.

×

Search Tips

Use Boolean operators: AND/OR

diabetic AND foot
diabetes OR diabetic

Exclude a word using the 'minus' sign

Virchow -triad

Use Parentheses

water AND (cup OR glass)

Add an asterisk (*) at end of a word to include word stems

Neuro* will search for Neurology, Neuroscientist, Neurological, and so on

Use quotes to search for an exact phrase

"primary prevention of cancer"
(heart or cardiac or cardio*) AND arrest -"American Heart Association"