Skip to main content
. 2021 Feb 25;21(4):410. doi: 10.3892/etm.2021.9841

Table III.

Effects of PAD in elderly patients with bile duct stones who received ERCP.

  Group, n (%)  
Variates Total PAD N-PAD χ2 P-value
Sex       13.543 <0.001
     Male 115 89 (68.99) 26 (41.27)    
     Female 77 40 (31.01) 37 (58.73)    
Papilla cannulation       2.694 0.101
     Difficult cannulation 30 16 (12.90) 14 (22.22)    
     Routine cannulation 157 108 (87.10) 49 (77.78)    
Papilla cutting       10.800 0.001
     Simple sphincter stretching 49 42 (33.33) 7 (11.11)    
     EST 140 84 (66.67) 56 (88.89)    
Maximum diameter of stone, cm       4.240 0.120
     1.0-1.9 112 79 (65.83) 33 (60.00)    
     <1.0 42 24 (20.00) 18 (32.73)    
     ≥2 21 17 (14.17) 4 (7.27)    
Multiplicity/property of stones       1.359 0.507
     Single 68 43 (34.13) 25 (39.68)    
     Multiple 101 71 (56.35) 30 (47.62)    
     Mud-like and not formed 20 12 (9.52) 8 (12.70)    
Lithotomy status       - 0.648
     Partial stone extraction + biliary stent 10 8 (6.40) 2 (3.17)    
     Complete stone extraction 168 111 (88.80) 57 (90.48)    
     Biliary stent inserted without stone extraction 10 6 (4.80) 4 (6.35)    
Mechanical lithotripsy       0.619 0.432
     Unsuccessful 166 109 (86.51) 57 (90.48)    
     Successful 23 17 (13.49) 6 (9.52)    
Complications       - 0.162
     Hemorrhage 1 0 (0.00) 1 (1.59)    
     Cholangitis 153 106 (82.81) 47 (74.60)    
     Pancreatitis 37 22 (17.19) 15 (23.81)    
Common bile duct diameter, cm       0.653 0.419
     <1.50 63 40 (31.75) 23 (37.70)    
     ≥1.5 124 86 (68.25) 38 (62.30)    
Repeated intervention       - 0.150
     No 177 116 (89.92) 61 (96.83)    
     Yes 15 13 (10.08) 2 (3.17)    

PAD, periampullary duodenal diverticula; N-PAD group, patients without PAD; EST, endoscopic sphincterotomy