Endoscopic and anesthetic feasibility of EUS and ERCP combined in a single session versus two different sessions
Endoscopic and anesthetic feasibility of EUS and ERCP combined in a single session versus two different sessions
复制标题
DOI：
10.4253/wjge.v3.i3.57
复制
发表时间：
2011-03-16
影响因子：
2
通讯作者：
Jimenez, Francisco J.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Vila, Juan J.;Kutz, Marcos;Jimenez, Francisco J.
目的：探讨单次内镜超声检查（EUS）的可行性，讨论和内镜逆行胰胆管造影术（ERCP）execution.METHODS：回顾性内镜和麻醉结果比较EUS和ERCP在一个单一的内镜会话（组I）与执行每个程序在两个不同的会话（组II）。对以下变量进行了评价：流行病学变量、美国麻醉医师协会身体状况分类（阿萨）水平、手术时间、丙泊酚剂量、麻醉并发症、内镜并发症和诊断率以及两组的治疗程序。T-student，卡方和Fisher检验用于comparation.Results：我们包括39例患者在组I（平均年龄：69.85 +/- 9.25; 27名男性）和46例在组II（平均年龄：67.46 +/- 12.57; 25名男性）。两组之间的手术时间没有显著差异（第IV组与第II组：93 +/- 32.78 vs 98.98 +/- 38.17; P >0.05），但丙泊酚剂量不同（第I组与第II组：322.28 +/- 250.54 mg vs 516.96 +/- 289.06 mg; P = 0.001）。3例患者在两次探查中均发现正常。麻醉并发症3例[氧饱和度下降2例，支气管误吸1例]，内镜并发症9例[胰腺炎6例，出血1例，穿孔1例，胆管炎1例]，两组间差异无统计学意义（P > 0.05）。我们没有发现任何显着差异，年龄，性别，阿萨量表水平，诊断产量或治疗演习之间的groups.CONCLUSION：EUS和ERCP在一个单一的会议提供了类似的诊断和治疗产量的性能，不需要更高的并发症风险，并需要一个显着较小剂量的异丙酚镇静相比，在不同的会话进行每个探索。(C)2011年百世登。All rights reserved.
AIM: To discuss the feasibility of single session endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) to discuss and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) execution.METHODS: Retrospective endoscopic and anesthetic outcome comparison of performing both EUS and ERCP in a single endoscopic session (Group I) versus performing each procedure in two different sessions (Group II) was made. The following variables were evaluated: epidemiological variables, American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status Classification (ASA) level, procedural time, propofol dose, anesthetic complications, endoscopic complications and diagnostic yield, and therapeutic procedures on both groups. T-student, Chi-Square and Fisher test were used for comparison.RESULTS: We included 39 patients in Group I (mean age: 69.85 +/- 9.25; 27 men) and 46 in Group II (mean age: 67.46 +/- 12.57; 25 men). Procedural time did not differ significantly between both groups (Group Ivs Group II: 93 +/- 32.78 vs 98.98 +/- 38.17; P >0.05) but the dose of propofol differed (Group I vs Group II: 322.28 +/- 250.54 mg vs 516.96 +/- 289.06 mg; P = 0.001). Three patients had normal findings on both explorations. Three anesthetic complications [O-2 desaturation (2), broncoaspiration (1)] and 9 endoscopic complications [pancreatitis (6), bleeding (1), perforation (1), cholangitis (1)] occurred without significant differences between both groups (P > 0.05). We did not find any significant difference regarding age, sex, ASA scale level, diagnostic yield or therapeutic maneuvers between both groups.CONCLUSION: The performance of EUS and ERCP in a single session offers a similar diagnostic and therapeutic yield, does not entail a higher complication risk and requires a significantly smaller dose of propofol for sedation compared with performing each exploration in a different session. (C) 2011 Baishideng. All rights reserved.