ABSTRACT
Background/Aims@#Many Japanese institutions use electromagnetic extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) systems for treating pancreatic duct stones. However, there are no reports on direct comparisons between recent electromagnetic lithotripters. This study aimed to verify whether the new electromagnetic lithotripter can improve the efficiency of pancreatic stone fragmentation, and to clarify the role of combined endoscopic treatment on the clearance of pancreatic duct stones. @*Methods@#We retrospectively identified 208 patients with pancreatolithiasis who underwent endoscopic adjunctive treatment after pancreatic ESWL at a single Japanese center over a 17-year period. We evaluated the outcome data of this procedure performed with SLX-F2 (last 2 years; group A) and Lithostar/Lithoskop (first 15 years; group B), as well as additional endoscopic treatments for pancreatolithiasis. We also performed logistic regression analysis to detect various factors associated with the procedure. @*Results@#For pancreatic head stones, ESWL disintegration was achieved in 93.7% of group A patients and 69.0% of group B patients (p=0.004), and adjunctive endoscopic treatment removed stones in 96.8% of group A patients and 73.0% of group B patients (p=0.003). Multivariate analysis revealed that lithotripter type (odds ratio, 6.99; 95% confidence interval, 1.56 to 31.33; p<0.01) and main pancreatic duct stricture (odds ratio, 2.87; 95% confidence interval, 1.27 to 6.45; p<0.01) were significant factors for ESWL fragmentation. @*Conclusions@#The SLX F2 showed high performance in fragmenting the pancreatic duct stones.In addition, endoscopic adjunctive treatment improved the overall success rate of the procedure. The improved ESWL lithotripter has many advantages for patients undergoing pancreatic lithotripsy treatment.
ABSTRACT
Background/Aims@#Digital single-operator cholangioscopy (DSOC)-guided mapping biopsy (DMB) and tube-assisted mapping biopsy (TMB) are two techniques used for preoperative evaluation of biliary tract cancer (BTC). However, data regarding the diagnostic performance of these techniques are limited. @*Methods@#We retrospectively examined consecutive patients with BTC who underwent either technique at our institution between 2018 and 2020. We evaluated the technical success rate, adequate tissue acquisition rate, and diagnostic performance of these techniques for the evaluation of lateral spread of BTC. @*Results@#A total of 54 patients were included in the study. The technical success rate of reaching the target sites was 95% for DMB and 100% for TMB. The adequate tissue acquisition rate was 61% for DMB and 69% for TMB. The adequate tissue acquisition rate was low, especially for target sites beyond the secondary biliary radicles. The sensitivity of DMB alone was 39%, which improved to 65% when combined with visual impression. Experts demonstrated a higher negative predictive value and diagnostic accuracy with respect to both DSOC visual impression and DMB for the evaluation of lateral spread of BTC compared to trainees. @*Conclusions@#Adequate tissue acquisition rates were similar between the two techniques. Since DMB requires expertise, TMB may be an acceptable option when DSOC is unavailable or when DSOC expertise is limited.