What is the better surgical treatment option for recurrent common bile duct stones?
DC Field | Value | Language |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.author | Park, C.Y. | - |
dc.contributor.author | Choi, S.H. | - |
dc.contributor.author | Kwon, C.-I. | - |
dc.contributor.author | Cho, J.H. | - |
dc.contributor.author | Jang, S.I. | - |
dc.contributor.author | Lee, T.H. | - |
dc.contributor.author | Han, J.-H. | - |
dc.contributor.author | Jeong, S. | - |
dc.contributor.author | Ko, K.H. | - |
dc.date.available | 2021-02-19T07:40:20Z | - |
dc.date.created | 2020-12-28 | - |
dc.date.issued | 2020-12 | - |
dc.identifier.issn | 2288-6575 | - |
dc.identifier.uri | https://scholarworks.bwise.kr/gachon/handle/2020.sw.gachon/79993 | - |
dc.description.abstract | Purpose: Repeating endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in patients with recurrent common bile duct (CBD) stones is problematic in many ways. Choledochoduodenostomy (CDS) and choledochojejunostomy (CJS) are 2 surgical treatment options for recurrent CBD stones, and each has different advantages and disadvantages. The aim of this study was to compare the 2 surgical options in terms of the recurrence rate of CBD stones after surgical treatment. Methods: This retrospective multicenter study included all patients who underwent surgical treatment due to recurrent CBD stones that were not effectively controlled by medical treatment and repeated ERCP between January 2006 and March 2015. We collected data from chart reviews and medical records. A recurrent CBD stone was defined as a stone found 6 months after the complete removal of a CBD stone by ERCP. Patients who underwent surgery for other reasons were excluded. Results: A total of 27 patients were enrolled in this study. Six patients underwent CDS, and 21 patients underwent CJS for the rescue treatment of recurrent CBD stones. The median follow-up duration was 290 (180-1,975) days in the CDS group and 1,474 (180-6,560) days in the CJS group (P = 0.065). The postoperative complications were similar and tolerable in both groups (intestinal obstruction; 2 of 27, 7.4%; 1 in each group). CBD stones recurred in 4 patients after CDS (4 of 6, 66.7%), and 3 patients after CJS (3 of 21, 14.3%) (P = 0.010). Conclusion: CJS may be a better surgical option than CDS for preventing further stone recurrence in patients with recurrent CBD stones. Copyright © 2020, the Korean Surgical Society | - |
dc.language | 영어 | - |
dc.language.iso | en | - |
dc.publisher | Korean Surgical Society | - |
dc.relation.isPartOf | Annals of Surgical Treatment and Research | - |
dc.title | What is the better surgical treatment option for recurrent common bile duct stones? | - |
dc.type | Article | - |
dc.type.rims | ART | - |
dc.description.journalClass | 1 | - |
dc.identifier.wosid | 000596005300003 | - |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.4174/astr.2020.99.6.329 | - |
dc.identifier.bibliographicCitation | Annals of Surgical Treatment and Research, v.99, no.6, pp.329 - 336 | - |
dc.description.isOpenAccess | N | - |
dc.identifier.scopusid | 2-s2.0-85097812545 | - |
dc.citation.endPage | 336 | - |
dc.citation.startPage | 329 | - |
dc.citation.title | Annals of Surgical Treatment and Research | - |
dc.citation.volume | 99 | - |
dc.citation.number | 6 | - |
dc.contributor.affiliatedAuthor | Cho, J.H. | - |
dc.type.docType | Article | - |
dc.subject.keywordAuthor | Choledochoduodenostomy | - |
dc.subject.keywordAuthor | Choledochojejunostomy | - |
dc.subject.keywordAuthor | Choledocholithiasis | - |
dc.subject.keywordAuthor | Choledochostomy | - |
dc.subject.keywordAuthor | Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography | - |
dc.description.journalRegisteredClass | scie | - |
dc.description.journalRegisteredClass | scopus | - |
dc.description.journalRegisteredClass | kci | - |
Items in ScholarWorks are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.
1342, Seongnam-daero, Sujeong-gu, Seongnam-si, Gyeonggi-do, Republic of Korea(13120)031-750-5114
COPYRIGHT 2020 Gachon University All Rights Reserved.
Certain data included herein are derived from the © Web of Science of Clarivate Analytics. All rights reserved.
You may not copy or re-distribute this material in whole or in part without the prior written consent of Clarivate Analytics.