Abstract
BACKGROUND: Most of study regarding periampullary diverticulum (PAD) impact on endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) therapy for choledocholithiasis based on data from one endoscopy center and lacked to compare the clinical characteristic of choledocholithiasis with PAD from different geographical patients. AIM: To compare the choledocholithiasis clinical characteristics between two regional endoscopy centers and analyze impacts of clinical characteristics on ERCP methods for choledocholithiasis patients with PAD. METHODS: Patients seen in two endoscopy centers (The First Hospital of Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, Gansu Province, China, and Kyoto Second Red Cross Hospital, Kyoto, Japan) underwent ERCP treatment for the first time between January 2012 and December 2017. The characteristics of choledocholithiasis with PAD were compared between the two centers, and their ERCP procedures and therapeutic outcomes were analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 829 out of 3608 patients in the Lanzhou center and 241 out of 1198 in the Kyoto center had choledocholithiasis with PAD. Lots of clinical characteristics were significantly different between the two centers. The common bile duct (CBD) diameter was wider, choledocholithiasis size was lager and multiple CBD stones were more in the Lanzhou center patients than those in the Kyoto center patients (14.8 ± 5.2 mm vs 11.6 ± 4.2 mm, 12.2 ± 6.5 mm vs 8.2 ± 5.3 mm, 45.3% vs 20.3%, P < 0.001 for all). In addition, concomitant diseases, such as acute cholangitis, gallbladder stones, obstructive jaundice, cholecystectomy, and acute pancreatitis, were significantly different between the two centers (P = 0.03 to < 0.001). In the Lanzhou center, CBD diameter and choledocholithiasis size were lower, and multiple CBD stones and acute cholangitis were less in non-PAD patients than those in PAD patients (13.4 ± 5.1 mm vs 14.8 ± 5.2 mm, 10.3 ± 5.4 mm vs 12.2 ± 6.5, 39% vs 45.3%, 13.9% vs 18.5%, P = 0.002 to < 0.001). But all these characteristics were not significantly different in the Kyoto center. The proportions of endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST), endoscopic balloon dilatation (EPBD), and EST+EPBD were 50.5%, 1.7%, and 42.5% in the Lanzhou center and 90.0%, 0.0%, and 0.4% in the Kyoto center, respectively. However, the overall post-ERCP complication rate was not significantly different between the two centers (8.9% in the Lanzhou and 5.8% in the Kyoto. P = 0.12). In the Lanzhou center, the difficulty rate in removing CBD stones in PAD was higher than in non-PAD group (35.3% vs 26.0%, P < 0.001). But the rate was no significant difference between the two groups in Kyoto center. The residual rates of choledocholithiasis were not significantly different between the two groups in both centers. Post-ERCP complications occurred in 8.9% of the PAD patients and 8.1% of the non-PAD patients in the Lanzhou Center, and it occurred in 5.8% in PAD patients and 10.0% in non-PAD patients in the Kyoto center, all P > 0.05. CONCLUSION: Many clinical characteristics of choledocholithiasis patients with PAD were significantly different between the Lanzhou and Kyoto centers. The patients had larger and multiple stones, wider CBD diameter, and more possibility of acute cholangitis and obstructive jaundice in the Lanzhou center than those in the Kyoto center. The ERCP procedures to manage native duodenal papilla were different depending on the different clinical characteristics while the overall post-ERCP complications were not significantly different between the two centers. The stone residual rate and post-ERCP complications were not significantly different between choledocholithiasis patients with PAD and without PAD in each center.