PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Gianluca Spera

Publications and source records attributed to Gianluca Spera.

3 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2006

Treatment for painful calcified chronic pancreatitis: extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy versus endoscopic treatment: a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: In chronic pancreatitis, obstruction of the main pancreatic duct (MPD) may contribute to the pathogenesis of pain. Pilot studies suggest that extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) alone relieves pain in calcified chronic pancreatitis. AIM: To compare ESWL alone with ESWL and endoscopic drainage of the MPD for treatment of pain in chronic pancreatitis. SUBJECTS: Patients with uncomplicated painful chronic pancreatitis and calcifications obstructing the MPD. METHODS: 55 patients were randomised to ESWL alone (n = 26) or ESWL combined with endoscopy (n = 29). RESULTS: 2 years after trial intervention, 10 (38%) and 13 (45%) patients of the ESWL alone and ESWL combined with endoscopy group, respectively, had presented pain relapse (primary outcome) (OR 0.77; 95% CI 0.23 to 2.57). In both groups, a similar decrease was seen after treatment in the MPD diameter (mean decrease 1.7 mm; 95% CI 0.9 to 2.6; p<0.001), and in the number of pain episodes/year (mean decrease, 3.7; 95% CI 2.6 to 4.9; p<0.001). Treatment costs per patient were three times higher in the ESWL combined with endoscopy group compared with the ESWL alone group (p = 0.001). The median delay between the onset of chronic pancreatitis and persistent pain relief for both groups was 1.1 year (95% CI 0.7 to 1.6), as compared with 4 years (95% CI 3 to 4) for the natural history of chronic pancreatitis in a reference cohort (p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: ESWL is a safe and effective preferred treatment for selected patients with painful calcified chronic pancreatitis. Combining systematic endoscopy with ESWL adds to the cost of patient care, without improving the outcome of pancreatic pain.

Abdominal Pain↗
PubMed2005

Endoscopic removal of malfunctioning biliary self-expandable metallic stents.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic removal of malfunctioning self-expandable metallic biliary stents (SEMS) is difficult and not well described. The aim of this study is to review the indications, the techniques, and the results of SEMS removal in a cohort of patients with malfunctioning stents. METHODS: All patients who underwent an attempt at endoscopic removal of biliary SEMS over a 5-year period were retrospectively identified. The main indications for SEMS removal were the following: distal migration of the stent or impaction to the duodenum, impaction into the bile-duct wall, tissue ingrowth, and inappropriate length of the stent causing occlusion of intrahepatic ducts. SEMS were removed by using foreign-body forceps or polypectomy snares. RESULTS: Endoscopic removal of 39 SEMS (13 uncovered and 26 covered) was attempted in 29 patients (17 men; mean age, 66 years). SEMS extraction was attempted after a mean of 7.5 months (8.75 months standard deviation) post-SEMS insertion. Removal was successful in 20 patients (68.9%) and in 29 SEMS (74.3%). Covered SEMS were effectively removed more frequently than uncovered ones: 24 of 26 (92.3%) and 5 of 13 (38.4%), respectively (p < 0.05). No major complications were recorded. Multivariate analysis showed that the time interval between insertion and removal, SEMS length, stent-mesh design (zigzag vs. interlaced), and indication for removal were not predictive of success at stent removal. CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopic removal of biliary SEMS is feasible and safe in more than 70% of cases. Because only 38% of uncovered SEMS were removable, the presence of a stent covering is the only factor predictive of successful stent extraction. The presence of diffuse and severe ingrowth was the main feature limiting SEMS removal.

Aged↗