Objective To evaluate the value of Ureteral Stent Placement before Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy (ESWL). Methods We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Issue 4, 2010), MEDLINE (OVID 1950 to April 2010), EMbase (1979 to April 2010), CBM (1978 to April 2010), CNKI (1979 to April 2010), and VIP (1989 to April 2010), and manually searched journals as well. All the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of treating ureteral stone with ESWL after stent placement were included. We evaluated the risk of the bias of the included RCTs according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.0.1. The Cochrane Collaboration’s software RevMan 5.0 was used for meta-analysis. Results Three RCTs with C-level evidence involving 319 ureteral stone patients were identified. The results of meta-analyses showed that: a) Effect of treatment: The ureteral stent placement before ESWL did not take better effects in aspects of the complete clearance rate (WMD= 1.10, 95%CI 0.87 to 1.38), the quantity of lithotripsy (WMD= 0.43, 95%CI – 1.05 to 0.19), the frequency of shock wave (WMD= 0.00, 95%CI – 0.25 to 0.25), and the power of shock wave (WMD= 0.20, 95%CI – 0.05 to 0.46); and b) Postoperative complications: The ureteral stent placement were prone to cause dysuria (RR= 2.30, 95%CI 1.62 to 3.26), microscopic hematuria (RR= 2.66, 95%CI 1.97 to 3.58), gross hematuria (RR= 6.50, 95%CI 1.50 to 28.15), pyuria (RR= 1.78, 95%CI 1.44 to 2.21), positive urine culture (RR= 2.13, 95%CI 1.71 to 2.64), and suprapubic pain (RR= 3.10, 95%CI 1.59 to 6.04). Conclusions Ureteral stent placement before ESWL is inadvisable. Multi-factors which lead to bias affected the authenticity of our review, such as low-quality and small amount of RCTs. Further large-scale trials are required.
ObjectiveTo assess the efficacy and safety of percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) versus ureteroscopic lithotripsy (URL) in the treatment of impacted proximal ureteral stones>1 cm. MethodsWe electronically searched PubMed, Cochrane library, Embase, WanFang, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure and VIP database (by the end of July 2015) to collect randomized controlled trials involving PCNL vs. URL for the treatment of impacted proximal ureteral stones> 1 cm. The quality of those trials were assessed. Data were extracted and analyzed with RevMan 5.3 software. ResultsSix randomized controlled trials were finally obtained after screening. A total of 487 patients were included for a Meta-analysis. The results showed that, as compared with the control group (URL), the patients in the trial group (PCNL) had the following features: ① There was a remarkable improvement of stone clearance rate [RR=1.20, 95% CI (1.09, 1.33), P=0.000 3].② There was no statistical difference in postoperative fever rates, urinary tract perforation rates [RR=1.73, 95%CI (0.43, 7.00), P=0.45; RR=1.02, 95%CI (0.11, 9.37), P=0.99], but the incidence of hematuria was higher [RR=1.99, 95%CI (1.09, 3.62), P=0.03], and the mean operative duration was longer [WMD=30.03 minutes, 95%CI (10.04, 50.02) minuntes, P=0.003].③ The mean hospitalization stay was delayed by an average of 3.73 days [WMD=3.73 days, 95%CI (3.02, 4.44) days, P<0.000 01]. ConclusionPCNL is better than URL in the stone clearance rate, while patients in the PCNL group have to stay in the hospital much longer, and should bear longer mean operative duration.
ObjectiveTo systematically review the effectiveness and safety of transurethral ureteroscopy lithotripsy in the treatment of upper ureteral calculi. MethodsWe electronically searched The Cochrane Library (Issue 3, 2013), PubMed (1966 to 2013.8), EMbase (1990 to 2013.8), CNKI (1949 to 2013.9), CBM (1978 to 2013.9), VIP (1989 to 2013.8) and WanFang Data (1990 to 2013.8) for the randomized controlled studies (RCTs) related to retroperitoneoscopy ureterolithotomy versus transurethral ureteroscopy lithotripsy for upper ureteral calculi. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data, and evaluated methodological quality of included studies. Then meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.2 software. ResultsA total of 16 RCTs involving 1 410 patients (transurethral ureteroscopy lithotripsy:747 cases; etroperitoneal laparoscopic ureterolithotomy:663 cases) were included. The results of meta-analysis showed that, transurethral ureteroscopy lithotripsy was lower than retroperitoneoscopy ureterolithotomy in success rates of surgery (OR=0.26, 95%CI 0.14 to 0.51), 3-day stone clearance rates (OR=0.06, 95%CI 0.03 to 0.11), and 1-month stone clearance rates (OR=0.21, 95%CI 0.08 to 0.53), while it showed superiority in operation time (MD=-22.35, 95%CI-35.29 to-9.41) and postoperative hospital stay (MD=-1.84, 95%CI-3.44 to-0.24). ConclusionCurrent evidence shows that, in the treatment of upper ureteral calculi, transurethral ureteroscopy lithotripsy causes less operation time and postoperative hospital stay, but it had no advantage in success rates of surgery, 3-day stone clearance rates, and 1-month stone clearance rates.
ObjectiveTo summarize experience of endoscopic reverse biliary tract stent placement via choledochus in treatment of situs inversus totalis complicated with choledocholithiasis.MethodThe clinical data of one patient with situs inversus totalis complicated with choledocholithiasis in the Department of Tumor Surgery of Lanzhou University Second Hospital were retrospectively analyzed.ResultsThe ERCP was failed at the first admission, followed by the cholecystectomy plus choledocholithotomy plus T-tube drainage, the stones were removed. Two months later, choledochoscopy revealed multiple choledocholithiasis, then the holmium laser lithotripsy and bile duct stent placement was performed at the secondary admission, the postoperative recovery was good, it had been more than 2 months after the surgery, no stone recurrence occurred.ConclusionEndoscopic reverse biliary tract stent placement via choledochus is feasible, which can be used as an option for treatment of patient with situs inversus totalis complicated with choledocholithiasis.
ObjectiveTo compare difference of therapeutic effects between endoscopic frequency-doubled double pulse neodymium yttrium aluminium garnet (FREDDY) laser and endoscopic traditional mechanical lithotripsy in treatment of common bile duct stones (CBDs).MethodsThe clinical data of 207 patients with CBDs treated with ERCP and lithotripsy in the Ninth People’s Hospital Affiliated to Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine from March 2009 to March 2019 were analyzed retrospectively, of which 71 cases treated by FREDDY (FREDDY group) and 136 cases treated by mechanical lithotripsy (mechanical group). The success rate of stone removal, operation time, postoperative hospitalization time, hospitalization cost, consumables cost, and complications were compared between the two groups.ResultsThere were no significant differences in the general condition and the preoperative clinical data between the two groups (P>0.05). There was no perioperative death in the two groups. There were no significant differences in terms of the postoperative routine laboratory biochemical indexes, consumables cost, hospitalization cost, and rates of the bleeding, postoperative pancreatitis, perforation and biliary tract infection between the two groups (P>0.05). Although the operation time of the FREDDY group was significantly longer than that of the mechanical group (P<0.05), the success rate of stone removal was significantly higher, the postoperative hospitalization time was shorter, the total complications rate and stone residual rate were significantly lower in the FREDDY group as compared with the mechanical group (P<0.05).ConclusionEndoscopic FREDDY laser lithotripsy has a better curative effect and less complications in treatment of large CBDs than mechanical lithotripsy, but operation time needs further to be improved.
ObjectiveTo investigate the feasibility and safety of percutaneous transhepatic choledochoscopic lithotripsy (PTCSL) in the treatment of recurrent type Ⅱa hepatolithiasis.MethodsAll of 293 patients with recurrent type Ⅱa hepatolithiasis admitted to the Second Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University from December 2010 to December 2017 were collected retrospectively, 82 of whom were treated with the PTCSL (PTCSL group), 211 of whom were treated with traditional open surgery (open group). The patients were matched according to the ratio of 1∶1 by using the method of propensity score matching, then the patients were compared after matching.ResultsA total of 59 pairs were successfully matched, that was, there were 59 patients in the PTCSL group and open group, respectively. Compared with the open group, the PTCSL group had the similar conditions such as the gender, age, preoperative Child-Pugh classification, and times of previous biliary operations, etc. (P>0.050). There was no perioperative death in both groups. There were no significant differences between the two groups in the success rate, operation time, times of operations, time of T tube removal after operation, stone residual rate, and stone recurrence rate (P>0.050). Although the hospital costs of the PTCSL group was higher than that of the open group (P<0.050), the PTCSL group had various advantages, such as less intraoperative bleeding, smaller incisional scar, shorter hospital stay and postoperative ventilation time, and lower rate of total postoperative complications (P<0.050).ConclusionsAfter learning curve, PTCSL has many advantages over traditional open surgery in treatment of recurrent type Ⅱa hepatolithiasis. PTCSL is a minimally invasive surgery, which is safe and effective.
Objective To evaluate the efficacy of direct vision guided lithotripsy with SpyGlass DS in the treatment of pancreatic duct obstruction caused by chronic calcified pancreatitis and pancreatic duct stones. Methods The clinical data of 9 patients with chronic calcified pancreatitis and pancreatic duct stone who underwent direct-vision guided pancreatic duct stone lithotripsy with SpyGlass DS from July 2017 to September 2017 in the Department of Gastroenterology of Jilin People’s Hospital were retrospectively analyzed, then assessment of technical success rate, clinical success rate, and incidence of adverse event were performed. Results A total of 13 times of intervention were performed in 9 patients, the overall technical success rate of SpyGlass DS direct vision lithotripsy and drainage was 88.9% (8/9). Three of the 9 patients (30.3%) had adverse reactions, including self-limiting bleeding after sphincterotomy (n=1), post-encoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography pancreatitis (n=2), and mild abdominal pain (n=2). Nine patients were followed-up for 3－50 months (median of 21 months), 8 patients (88.89%) reported improvement in abdominal pain, and the mean visual analogue scale score decreased from 6.22±1.47 to 2.78±1.23, P<0.01. Eight patients (88.9%) patients achieved clinical success. Conclusion The SpyGlass DS direct vision-guided lithotripsy is safe and effective for patients with pancreatic duct stones.
Pancreatic duct stones are secondary to chronic pancreatitis while conventional medical treatment is always not effective. Due to the advantages of less trauma, simple operation, and fewer complications, since endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) combined with extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) was first used in the treatment of pancreatic duct stones in 1987, the treatment method has been continuously improved for more than 30 years, and has experienced the development process from being questioned to becoming the first-line treatment for pancreatic duct stones in multinational guidelines nowadays. However, with the rapid development of science and technology today, the method of ERCP combined with extracorporeal lithotripsy is also facing the challenges of many other treatment methods.
Objective To explore the value of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatograph (ERCP) and extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) in the treatment of pancreatic duct stones. Methods A retrospective collection of 28 patients with chronic pancreatitis and pancreatic duct stones admitted to the Department of Gastroenterology from January 2010 to August 2021 was performed. According to the treatment of patients, they were divided into ERCP direct stone extraction group and ESWL combined ERCP stone extraction group. We compared the treatment effects of the two groups of patients, including the success rate of stone extraction, postoperative complications of ERCP, postoperative symptom improvement, and so on. Results Among the 28 patients, 19 cases underwent ERCP direct stone extraction, and 9 cases underwent ESWL combined with ERCP stone extraction. In the ERCP direct stone extraction group, 7 cases (36.84%) were completely extracted, 1 case was partially extracted (5.26%), and 11 cases (57.89%) failed to extract and only placed stents and drained; 5 cases (26.32%) had elevated white blood cells at 6 hours postoperatively, C-reactive protein increased in 4 cases (21.05%), 3 cases (15.79%) were diagnosed as ERCP-related pancreatitis, and 2 cases (10.53%) were diagnosed as hyperamylaseemia. The abdominal pain symptoms were completely relieved in 14 cases (73.68%) during a follow-up period of 3 to 6 months. The body mass of 17 cases (89.47%) increased in the 6 months after stone extraction. ESWL combined with ERCP had complete stone extraction in 5 cases (55.56%), partial stone extraction in 3 cases (33.33%), and failure in stone extraction and only stent drainage in 1 case (11.11%). One case (11.11%) had elevated white blood cells at 6 hours postoperatively, and 1 case (11.11%) had elevated C-reactive protein . One case (11.11%) was diagnosed with ERCP-related pancreatitis. One case (11.11%) got abdominal pain and transient hematuria during ESWL, which resolved spontaneously 3 days later. After 3 to 6 months of follow-up, 9 patients (100%) had complete relief of abdominal pain symptoms, and the body mass of 9 patients (100%) increased in the 6 months after stone extraction. The stone clearance rate of the ESWL combined with ERCP stone extraction group was higher than that of the ERCP direct stone extraction group (P=0.033), but there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in terms of ERCP-related complications, relief of abdominal pain, and weight gain (P>0.05). Conclusion ESWL combined with ERCP in the treatment of chronic pancreatitis complicated with pancreatic duct stone extraction is more effective than ERCP direct stone extraction.