These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Predictors of recurrent bile duct stone after clearance by endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: A case-control study.
    Author: Sbeit W, Kadah A, Simaan M, Shahin A, Khoury T.
    Journal: Hepatobiliary Pancreat Dis Int; 2022 Feb; 21(1):50-55. PubMed ID: 33966994.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: Recurrent common bile duct (CBD) stone is a long-term sequalae among patients who underwent endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) with CBD stone extraction. Data regarding risk factors for recurrent CBD stone are scarce. We aimed to identify predictors of recurrent CBD stone. METHODS: We performed a retrospective case-controlled study from January 2010 to December 2019. Inclusion criteria included patients who had recurrent CBD stone at least 6 months after the index ERCP, in which complete stone extraction was performed and normal cholangiogram was obtained. Overall, 457 patients were included. Forty-two patients (9.2%) had recurrent CBD stone, and 415 patients (90.8%) did not have recurrent CBD stone. RESULTS: In univariate analysis, male sex [odds ratio (OR) = 0.49, P = 0.033] was a protective factor, while endoscopic stone extraction by basket vs. balloon (OR = 2.55, P = 0.005), older age (OR = 1.03, P = 0.003), number of CBD stones (OR = 1.99, P = 0.037), size of CBD stone (OR = 4.06, P = 0.003) and mechanical lithotripsy (OR = 9.22, P = 0.004) were risk factors for recurrent CBD stone. In multivariate logistic regression analysis, mechanical lithotripsy [OR = 9.73, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.69-55.89, P = 0.010], basket clearance vs. combined basket and balloon (OR = 18.25, 95% CI: 1.05-318.35, P = 0.046) and older age (OR = 1.02, 95% CI: 1.00-1.05, P = 0.023) were risk factors, and male sex (OR = 0.39, 95% CI: 0.19-0.81, P = 0.012) was a protective factor. CONCLUSIONS: We identified modifiable and non-modifiable risk factors for recurrent CBD stone. Taking into consideration those factors might aid in minimizing the CBD stone recurrence risk.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]