Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for clearance of refractory bile duct stones.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Following endoscopic sphincterotomy, 90% of bile duct stones can be removed with a Dormia basket or balloon catheter. The removal can fail in patients with large stones, intrahepatic stones, bile duct strictures or a difficult anatomy. The aim of this retrospective study is to investigate the efficacy and safety of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in fragmenting and allowing the extraction of bile duct stones that could not be cleared by routine endoscopic means including mechanical lithotripsy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From 1989 to January 2005, we treated with extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy 376 patients (133 males and 243 females, median age 71.4 years) with bile duct stones that were not removable following endoscopic sphincterotomy, using the extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy Lithostar Plus machine built by Siemens Co. of Erlangen, Germany. Stone targeting was performed fluoroscopically following injection of contrast via nasobiliary drain or T-tube in 362 patients and by ultrasonography in eight patients. Residual fragments were cleared at endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatograhy. Two hundred and ten of the 370 patients treated (56.7%) showed only 1 stone, 57 (15.4%) showed 2, 45 (12.1%) showed 3, 58 (15.6%) showed more than 3 stones. The median diameter of the stones was 21mm (range 7-80mm). RESULTS: Complete stone clearance was achieved in 334 of the 376 patients who underwent the extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy procedure (90.2%). Six patients (1.5%) dropped out of treatment during their first sessions, mainly because of intolerance. Each patient averaged 3.7 treatments (1-12), at an average rate of 3470 shocks per session (1500-5400), at an average energy level of 3.4mJ (1-7). Complications were recorded in 34 patients (9.1%); 22 patients experienced symptomatic cardiac arrhythmia, 4 haemobilia, 2 cholangitis, 3 haematuria, 3 dyspnoea; no deaths were associated with the procedure. CONCLUSIONS: Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy is a safe and effective therapy in those patients in whom endoscopic techniques have failed with a clearing rate of 90.2% of refractory bile duct stones with a low rate of complications.

[The epidemiology of the gastroduodenal damage induced by aspirin and other nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs]. / Epidemiologia del danno gastroduodenale indotto dall'aspirina e dagli altri farmaci antiinfiammatori non steroidei.

A substantial body of studies (controlled, cohort and case-control studies) now confirm the long established impression that there is an increased prevalence of gastric and duodenal ulcer and of associated complications in subjects treated with aspirin (ASA) or with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). The overall percentage of ulcers/erosions in patients treated with ASA ranges from 10 to 50% with a relative risk of bleeding ranging from 1.8 to 15%. The overall relative risk of ulcers/erosions in NSAIDs-treated subjects is around 3%, with complications detectable in 2.4% of cases. The risk of lesions and complications associated with ASA/NSAIDs is more marked in patients aged over 65, in those with a previous history of ulcer (both symptomatic and silent), in those treated with substantial doses or with combinations of NSAIDs and in those concomitantly using anticoagulants and/or steroids. The epidemiological data highlight the importance of implementing ASA/NSAIDs therapy only when strictly necessary as well as the advisability of adopting as broad a range of measures as possible to reduce the tissue-damaging effects of these pharmacological agents.

[Diet and drugs in the therapy of nonorganic dyspepsia: the hypothesis and factual data]. / Dieta e farmaci nella terapia della dispepsia non organica: ipotesi e dati di fatto.

Non-organic dyspepsia, although not frequently reported, is still a disorder which is difficult to classify in nosographic and physiopathological terms, a fact which inevitably influences the indications for its treatment. Non-pharmacological treatment of non-organic dyspepsia includes changes in dietary and behavioural habits which, even if established on empirical grounds, play a far from ancillary role. When considered appropriate, pharmacological treatment must be formulated solely on the basis of controlled clinical trials vs placebo given the well-known significance of the placebo effect in this and other so-called "functional" diseases. The therapeutic strategies which are most subject to verification are based on the one hand on the neutralisation or inhibition of gastric acid secretion and, on the other, on the improvement of gastrointestinal motility. Surprisingly, the widely used antacid drugs are among those which have been less well studied and show the lowest efficacy. Among the anti-secretory drugs, pirenzepine is approximately 25% more effective than placebo. H2-antagonists, the drugs which have been most closely studied both in terms of the number of trials and the size of the sample populations studied, produce contradictory results. However, a meta-analysis of the trials shows an overall 18% improvement in efficacy compared to placebo. The overall results of studies on prokinetic compounds are "good" in meta-analytical terms, with an improved efficacy of 50% compared to placebo. This is not necessarily due to the superiority of prokinetic compared to anti-secretory drugs and can be explained by the reduced placebo effect in trials using prokinetic drugs or a greater presence in the latter of dyspepsia which is physiopathologically correlated to motor discord. Among the future drugs still being studied, it is particularly worth mentioning fedotozine, a specific K opioid receptor agonist which appears to have provided extremely interesting results in preliminary studies. The role of barrier drugs, such as sucralfate and colloidal bismuth, continues to remain unclear and in particular the latter might be of increased use if evidence of a relationship between Helicobacter pylori and non-organic dyspepsia were reinforced; this relationship may in fact not exist in all dyspeptic patients but only in a subgroup. Lastly, the problem of the duration of pharmacological treatment still remains unsolved, as do the questions of whether longterm treatment should be conceived once acute symptoms have disappeared and whether it is possible to hypothesise differentiated pharmacological treatment depending on the clinical variants of functional dyspepsia which have been defined with greater attention over the course of the past decade.