Impact of periampullary diverticula on the outcome and fluoroscopy time in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography

Untitled

“…Most previous researches confirmed the relation between the high prevalence of PAD and the advanced age, [5,7,10,13,16,[24][25][26][27][28] and this relationship was also reconfirmed in our study since the mean age of patients was significantly higher in patients with PAD than others (52 vs. 41.4 years, P < 0.001). In our study, the incidence of PAD was slightly higher in females (51.8% vs. 48.2%) but not significant (P = 0.86), and this was comparable with most previous studies.…”

“…In our study, the incidence of PAD was slightly higher in females (51.8% vs. 48.2%) but not significant (P = 0.86), and this was comparable with most previous studies. [5,7,13,16,25,27,28] Our results were comparable with the previous results regarding no significant difference in the medical history [13] and indication [5,13,16] for ERCP in patients with or without PAD. On contrary, another study showed that obstructive jaundice was significantly more prevalent in patients without PAD.…”

“…On contrary, another study showed that obstructive jaundice was significantly more prevalent in patients without PAD. [7] We reconfirm the previous studies [7,16] regarding significant association between patients with PAD and a worse general condition (P = 0.04). This may be attributed to the significant old age of this group of patients.…”

“…[25] Prevalence rates from 4 to 9% to 25-32.8% have been reported at esophagogastroduodenoscopy, the average being from 10 to 20%. [5,7,10,11,13,16,[23][24][25][26][27] Our study showed the comparable result (11.2%) with the average prevalence in the previous studies.…”

“…[15] The size of stone was measured after correction for the magnification by using the known diameter of the duodenoscope on the same radiograph as a reference. [16] Successful cannulation was defined as deep instrumentation of the biliary tree, and a cholangiogram was obtained. [17] Cannulation attempt was defined as sustained contact between the cannulating device and the papilla for at least 5 s [17] or as any obvious repositioning of the cannulation device into the papillary orifice.…”