Retrospective Study
Copyright ©The Author(s) 2020.
World J Gastrointest Endosc. Aug 16, 2020; 12(8): 220-230
Published online Aug 16, 2020. doi: 10.4253/wjge.v12.i8.220
Table 1 Comparison of patient characteristics between the esophagogastroduodenoscopy and colonoscopy groups
EGDS group (n = 17)CS group (n = 27)P value
Age (yr, mean ± SD)75.2 ± 13.075.7 ± 13.00.88
Sex, male/female15/222/50.69
Period after B-II reconstruction (yr, mean ± SD)36.8 ± 13.836.8 ± 13.81.0
Diseases treated with B-II reconstruction
Gastric ulcer, n1011
Duodenal ulcer, n39
Gastric cancer, n24
Pyloric stenosis, n11
Gastric ptosis, n11
Unknown, n1
Untreated papilla of Vater, n (%)15 (88.2)27 (100)0.14
Antithrombotic drugs, n (%)2 (11.8)5 (18.5)0.69
Periampullary diverticulum, n (%)1 (5.9)3 (11.1)1.0
Disease, n
Bile duct stone11200.52
Others67
Biliary ductal cancer32
Pancreatic cancer13
Chronic pancreatitis11
Benign biliary stricture11
Transverse diameter of the largest stone (mm, mean ± SD)10.2 ± 4.812.2 ± 3.80.24
Number of stones [n, median (range)]4 (1 - 30)2 (1 - 6)0.18
Table 2 Comparison of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography procedural characteristics between the esophagogastroduodenoscopy and colonoscopy groups
EGDS group (n = 17)CS group (n = 27)P value
EST, n (%)7 (41.2)19 (70.4)0.07
EPBD or EPLBD, n (%)6 (35.3)13 (48.1)0.54
Procedural time [min, median (range)]60 (20-100)90 (40-128)< 0.01
Papilla of Vater access, n (%)14 (82.4)25 (92.6)0.36
Stone clearance, n (%)6/11 (54.5)8/19 (42.1)1.0
Stone destruction, n (%)3/11 (27.3)6/19 (31.6)1.0
Procedural success, n (%)14 (82.4)17 (63.0)0.20
Adverse events, n (%)0 (0)0 (0)
PEP, n (%)0 (0)0 (0)
Table 3 Factors influencing the endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography procedural time
Univariate analysis
Multivariate analysis
Procedural time ≥ 70 min, n (yes/no)OR95%CIP valueOR95%CIP value
Age ≥ 76 yr13/92.090.63–6.940.23
Sex, male17/200.340.06–1.980.23
Period after B-II reconstruction ≥ 4011/111.00.31–3.261.0
Untreated papilla of Vater21/211.00.06–17.11.0
Antithrombotic drug use3/40.710.14–3.630.68
Periampullary diverticulum1/30.300.03–3.150.32
Bile duct stone15/160.80.22–2.940.74
Transverse diameter of largest stone ≥ 12.2 mm7/80.770.18–3.210.72
Number of stones ≥ 210/72.290.52–10.00.27
CS group17/104.081.11–5.00.0353.971.05–15.00.04
EST14/121.460.44–4.880.54
EPBD or EPLBD10/91.200.37–3.970.76
Papilla of Vater access20/191.580.24–10.50.64
Stone clearance8/81.00.24–4.21.0
Stone destruction6/32.670.52–13.70.24
Procedural success15/190.340.07–1.540.160.360.07–1.740.2
Table 4 The upper bending angle of esophagogastroduodenoscopy was greater than that of colonoscopy
EGDS groupCS groupP value
GIF-Q240XPCF-Q260AI/AL
GIF-Q260PCF-PQ260L
GIF-Q260JSIF-Q260
Upper bending angle (degree)210180
Duodenal direction and catheter direction (cross/ parallel)111/38/150.02
Observation of papilla of Vater in the front, n (%)211 (78.6)1 (3.8)< 0.01

  • Citation: Sugimoto M, Takagi T, Suzuki R, Konno N, Asama H, Sato Y, Irie H, Watanabe K, Nakamura J, Kikuchi H, Takasumi M, Hashimoto M, Kato T, Hikichi T, Ohira H. Which scope is appropriate for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography after Billroth II reconstruction: An esophagogastroduodenoscope or a colonoscope? World J Gastrointest Endosc 2020; 12(8): 220-230
  • URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1948-5190/full/v12/i8/220.htm
  • DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4253/wjge.v12.i8.220