Pattern of gall stone size in patients presenting with acute biliary pancreatitis.

Le résumé fourni par la source

Objective: To forecast the likelihood of severe pancreatitis and make more informed treatment decisions if they comprehend the pattern of gallstone size in ABP. Study Design: Descriptive, Cross Sectional study. Setting: Department of Surgery, Allied Hospital, Faisalabad. Period: April 2025 to September 2025. Methods: Total 200 patients between the ages of 20 and 85 years who had acute biliary pancreatitis were included, regardless of gender. Patients with a history of trauma, pregnancy-related gallstone-induced pancreatitis, acute pancreatitis from reasons other than gallstones, concomitant conditions such diabetes, hypertension, or heart disease, or those with features of chronic pancreatitis or cancer were excluded. Common bile duct (CBD) diameter, number of gallstones, size of the largest and smallest gallstones, and presence or absence of CBD stones were recorded. Gallstones smaller than 10 mm were classified as tiny gallstones, and those larger than 10 mm were classified as large gallstones. Results: The study's age range was 20 to 85 years old, with a mean age of 58.25 ± 9.30 years. With a male to female ratio of 1:4.6, 34 (17.0%) of the 200 patients were men and 166 (84.0%) were women. In our study, the average length of illness was 5.71 ± 2.18 months. The mean BMI was 27.44 kg/m²-2.98. There were 9.43 ± 4.56 gallstones on average, with the largest gallstone measuring 24.33 ± 5.43 mm and the smallest measuring 5.63 ± 3.13 mm. The diameter of the CBD was 5.78 ± 0.87 mm. In our study, 186 individuals (93.1%) had little gallstones and 14 patients (7.0%) had large gallstones. Conclusion: The GS were more frequent and smaller in patients with acute biliary pancreatitis. Incorporating the size and quantity of GS into the decision-making process may be beneficial given the uncertainties surrounding the referral of patients with non-specific symptoms for cholecystectomy.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.