Skip to main content
. 2020 Dec 2;25(9):2268–2279. doi: 10.1007/s11605-020-04852-8

Table 4.

Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses for the assessment of the anatomical factors associated with the intra-pancreatic cystic duct

Univariate logistic regression (OR 95% CI) P Multivariate logistic regression (OR 95% CI) P
Gender (M) 0.913 (0.644–1.295) 0.610
Age (years)* 1.013 (1.001–1.024) 0.031
Intra-hepatic biliary variants4
Type 1 Referent -
Type 2 1.932 (1.224–3.052) 0.005
Type 3a 1.702 (1.077–2.691) 0.023
Type 3b 1.647 (0.796–3.407) 0.178
CDDP length (mm)* 0.855 (0.835–0.876) < 0.001
EHBD length (mm)* 0.996 (0.982–1.010) 0.554
Ratio CDDP/EHBD (%)* 1.61e−08 (1.19e−09–2.17e−07) < 0.001 3.48−07 (2.26−08–5.36−06) < 0.001
New classification for EHBD
Type 1 (ratio CDDP/EHBD ≤ 50%) 268.734 (36.732–1966.103) < 0.001
Type 2 (ratio CDDP/EHBD > 50% and ≤ 75%) 7.316 (0.992–53.970) 0.051
Type 3 (ratio CDDP/EHBD > 75%) Referent -
Standard classification for EHBD
Type 1 (ratio CDDP/EHBD ≤ 33%) 764.5 (182.859–3196.235) < 0.001
Type 2 (ratio CDDP/EHBD > 33% and ≤ 66%) 17.775 (7.732–40.863) < 0.001
Type 3 (ratio CDDP/EHBD > 66%) Referent -
CD radial insertion in the EHBD
Lateral Referent - Referent -
Posterior 2.003 (1.047–3.834) 0.036 0.965 (0.447–2.084) 0.927
Medial 36.131 (22.347–58.419) < 0.001 5.528 (2.939–10.395) < 0.001
Previous cholecystectomy 1.056 (0.680–1.640) 0.809

CDDP, cystic duct to duodenal papilla; EHBD, extrahepatic bile duct; CD, cystic duct

*Per unit increase