Poorly expandable common bile duct with stones on endoscopic retrograde cholangiography

Table 1 Characteristics of patients with a poorly expandable bile duct and comparisons between the patients with and without mechanical lithotripsy

Parameters	Overall (n = 30)	Need lithotripsy (n = 25)	Without lithotripsy (n = 5)	1P value
Age (yr)	47.4 ± 19.4 (20-92)	45.0 ± 19.3 (20-92)	59.0 ± 19.4 (29-76)	0.15
Gender (men) n (%)	20 (66.7)	17 (68)	3 (60)	1
Serum total bilirubin (mg/dL)	6.5 ± 3.6 (0.6-15)	6.7 ± 3.8 (1.1-15)	5.5 ± 3.6 (0.6-10.1)	0.55
History of cholecystectomy n (%)	6 (20)	5 (20)	1 (20)	1
Juxtapapillary diverticulum n (%)	7 (23.3)	5 (20)	2 (40)	0.57
CBD stones
Size of the largest stone (mm)	11.3 ± 4.7 (6-24)	12.0 ± 4.8 (6-24)	7.2 ± 1.6 (6-10)	0.04
Characteristic (cholesterol/black/brown)	16/11/3	13/9/3	3/2/0	0.72
Number (≥ 2) n (%)	12 (40)	11 (44)	1 (20)	0.62
Bile duct diameter (mm)
Non-PE CBD	14.3 ± 4.9 (7-26)	14.8 ± 4.9 (7-26)	11.4 ± 5.0 (7-20)	0.17
PE segment	5.8 ± 1.6 (4-10)	5.9 ± 1.6 (4-10)	5.6 ± 1.8 (4-8)	0.73
Length of the PE segment (mm)	39.7 ± 15.4 (12.3-70.9)	38.0 ± 14.8 (12.3-70.9)	45.1 ± 17.5 (22.5-70.2)	0.44
Distal CBD angle (degree)	159.3 ± 13.9 (130-175)	160 ± 12.1 (135-175)	157 ± 18.9 (130-175)	0.75
Diameter ratio of non-PE segment to PE segment	2.4 ± 0.6 (1.4-3.5)	2.5 ± 0.6 (1.5-3.5)	2.2 ± 0.4 (1.4-2.5)	0.05
Stone to PE segment	1.8 ± 0.7 (0.9-4)	2.1 ± 0.7 (1.2-4)	1.4 ± 0.4 (0.9-1.8)	0.02

CBD: Common bile duct; PE: Poorly expandable. ¹P value was the basis of comparison between patients with and without lithotripsy. A P value of < 0.05 indicated a significant difference.