Skip to main content
. 2022 Dec 26;22:440. doi: 10.1186/s12893-022-01890-8

Table 2.

Primary outcome and ERCP-related measures

Group I
(n = 70)
Group II
(n = 94)
p-value
Diameter of CBD (cm), 1.11 ± 0.95 1.13 ± 0.89 0.89
Cannulation success rate, N (%) 68(97.14) 92(97.87) 0.83
Technical success rate, N (%) 66 (94.29) 92(97.87) 0.43
Advanced cannulation techniques, N (%) 24(34.29) 16(17.02) 0.01
ERCP procedure, N (%) 0.18
 EST 30 (42.86) 36 (38.30)
 EPBD 25 (35.71) 29 (30.85)
 EST + EPBD 11(15.71) 27 (28.72)
Size of stone (mm) 10.25 ± 3.54 10.02 ± 2.71 0.49
Amylase(U/L)a 250.09 ± 408.12 200.20 ± 321.29 0.40
Lipase(U/L)a 166.25 ± 201.10 166.11 ± 199.52 0.12
Post-ERCP complications, N (%) 6 (8.57) 9 (9.57) 0.83
 ERCP-related pancreatitis 4 (5.71) 7 (7.45) 0.90
 Bleeding 1 (1.43) 0 (0) 0.43
 Perforation 0 (0) 0 (0)
 Cholangitis 1 (1.43) 1 (1.06) 1.00
 Cholecystitis 0 (0) 1 (1.06) 1.00
Mortality, N(%) 0 (0) 0 (0)
LC after the ERCP, N(%) 22 (31.43) 32 (34.04) 0.72
Total length of hospital stays (day)b 12.76 ± 9.33 13.48 ± 4.53 0.13
Length of hospital stay after ERCP (day)b 10.94 ± 9.43 6.59 ± 3.37 0.00
Cost on the ERCP (¥) 12172.10 ± 4133.55 12435.38 ± 4178.54 0.33
Total hospital cost (¥) b 24993.06 ± 9503.63 29547.13 ± 6815.92 0.15

Continuous data were showed as mean ± SD

CBD conmen bile duct; EST endoscopic sphincterotomy; EPBD endoscopic papillary balloon dilatation

a24 h post-ERCP

bThe patients with LC were excluded