Risk Factors for the Presence of Residual Bile Duct Stones after Endoscopic Treatment of Stones of the Common Bile Duct.
- Author:
Jin Won HWANG
1
;
Jung Sik CHOI
Author Information
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords: Common bile duct calculi; Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography
- MeSH: Bile Ducts*; Case-Control Studies; Cholangiopancreatography, Endoscopic Retrograde; Cholecystectomy; Common Bile Duct*; Dilatation; Diverticulum; Gallstones; Humans; Lithotripsy; Multivariate Analysis; Retrospective Studies; Risk Factors*; Urinary Bladder Calculi
- From:Korean Journal of Medicine 2015;88(1):38-45
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
- Abstract: BACKGROUND/AIMS: Stones remaining after endoscopic treatment of common bile duct (CBD) stones may evolve into recurrent CBD stones or serve as nuclei for the growth of new CBD stones. The aim of the present study was to identify risk factors for the presence of residual stones after endoscopic treatment of CBD stones. METHODS: We performed a retrospective case-control study; 55 patients with residual stones were enrolled as the case group and 281 patients without such stones served as a control group. We collected information on age, sex, stone characteristics, laboratory findings, the presence/absence of a periampullary diverticulum, use of mechanical lithotripsy, use of (single-procedure) endoscopic papillary balloon dilatation (EPBD), presence/absence of multiple CBD stones, CBD stone size, CBD stone diameter, whether CBDs were associated with gall bladder stones, and histories of prior cholecystectomy and cholecystectomy performed after endoscopic treatment. RESULTS: Upon univariate analysis, mechanical lithotripsy, single-procedure EPBD, the presence of multiple CBD stones (more than four), and CBD stone diameter greater than 1 cm were risk factors for the presence of residual stones. Upon multivariate analysis, single-procedure EPBD (odds ratio [OR], 3.174; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.68-6.00; p = 0.000), and more than four CBD stones (OR, 2.459; 95% CI, 1.24-4.86; p = 0.010), were significant risk factors for the presence of residual stones. CONCLUSIONS: Single-procedure EPBD and the presence of more than four CBD stones were independent risk factors for the presence of residual stones. Particular care, featuring meticulous inspection, is necessary when treating patients with these risk factors. A second procedure, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, may be required.
