• <tr id="yyy80"></tr>
  • <sup id="yyy80"></sup>
  • <tfoot id="yyy80"><noscript id="yyy80"></noscript></tfoot>
  • 99热精品在线国产_美女午夜性视频免费_国产精品国产高清国产av_av欧美777_自拍偷自拍亚洲精品老妇_亚洲熟女精品中文字幕_www日本黄色视频网_国产精品野战在线观看 ?

    Endoscopic bilateral stent-in-stent placement for malignant hilar obstruction using a large cell type stent

    2016-12-12 05:46:54JinMyungParkSangHyubLeeKwangHyunChungDongKeeJangJiKonRyuYongTaeKimJaeMinLeeandWooHyunPaik

    Jin Myung Park, Sang Hyub Lee, Kwang Hyun Chung, Dong Kee Jang, Ji Kon Ryu, Yong-Tae Kim, Jae Min Lee and Woo Hyun Paik

    Seoul, Korea

    Endoscopic bilateral stent-in-stent placement for malignant hilar obstruction using a large cell type stent

    Jin Myung Park, Sang Hyub Lee, Kwang Hyun Chung, Dong Kee Jang, Ji Kon Ryu, Yong-Tae Kim, Jae Min Lee and Woo Hyun Paik

    Seoul, Korea

    BACKGROUND: Bilateral stent-in-stent (SIS) self-expandable metal stent placement is technically challenging for palliation of unresectable malignant hilar obstruction. In the SIS technique, the uniform large cell type biliary stent facilitates contralateral stent deployment through the mesh of the first metallic stent. This study aimed to assess the technical success and clinical effectiveness of this technique with a uniform large cell type biliary stent.

    METHODS: Thirty-one patients who underwent bilateral SIS placement using a large cell type stent were reviewed retrospectively. All patients showed malignant hilar obstruction (Bismuth types II, III, IV) with different etiologies.

    RESULTS: Sixteen (51.6%) patients were male. The mean age of the patients was 67.0±14.0 years. Most patients were diagnosed as having hilar cholangiocarcinoma (58.1%) and gallbladder cancer (29.0%). Technical success rate was 83.9%. Success was achieved more frequently in patients without masses obstructing the biliary confluence (MOC) than those with MOC (95.2% vs 60.0%, P=0.03). Functional success rate was 77.4%. Complications occurred in 29.0% of the patients. These tended to occur more frequently in patients with MOC (50.0% vs 19.0%, P=0.11). Median time to recurrent biliary obstruction was 188 days and median survival was 175 days.

    CONCLUSIONS: The large cell type stent can be used efficiently for bilateral SIS placement in malignant hilar obstruction. However, the risk of technical failure increases in patients with MOC, and caution is needed to prevent complications for these patients.

    (Hepatobiliary Pancreat Dis Int 2016;15:633-639)

    biliary tract disease;

    cholangiocarcinoma;

    endoscopic biliary drainage;

    stent insertion

    Introduction

    Malignant hilar obstructions are the result of cholangiocarcinoma or gallbladder cancer in most cases. The associated prognosis is poor and surgery provides the only chance for a cure.[1]However, nearly half of hilar cholangiocarcinoma cases are not candidates for curative resection owing to advanced disease or the presence of significant comorbidities.[2]Endoscopic stenting is commonly performed for palliation of malignant hilar obstruction. The choice between the self-expandable metal stent (SEMS) and plastic stent (PS) is still debatable. Theoretical advantages of SEMS include larger diameter, ability to drain side branches, and good conformability. A prospective study reported fewer adverse outcomes following SEMS deployment compared to PS recipients.[3]

    A recent retrospective study revealed that draining more than half of the liver volume, which frequently requires bilateral stent insertion, is an important predic-

    tor of effective drainage and is associated with a longer median survival in malignant hilar obstruction.[4]Bilateral SEMS placement can be performed by the sideby-side or stent-in-stent (SIS) method. The side-byside method is technically easier but can cause excessive expansion of the bile duct in the region of SEMS overlap. In a study comparing the two methods in bilateral endoscopic metal stenting, the incidence of adverse events was significantly higher for the side-by-side method.[5]In addition, reintervention can be difficult for stents placed side-by-side. Stents are often placed with complete intraductal positioning in this technique. If the distal ends of stents are not positioned next to each other, reintervention is difficult because each lumen cannot be individually cannulated with ease.[6]The SIS technique is free from these limitations. However, this method is technically more difficult; passing a guidewire and stent delivery system into a contralateral bile duct through the mesh of SEMS placed first is not easy. To overcome these difficulties, several newly designed SEMSs have been developed for bilateral SIS placement.[7-10]The Niti-S large cell D-type biliary stent (LCD; Taewoong, Seoul, Korea) has large cells (7 mm) that allow the passage of a second stent through the mesh, with the radial force maintained at the central portion of the stent because of its uniform cell size. The chain-like connection of each stent cell confers low axial force, which prevents bile duct kinking at both ends of the hilar stent.[7]In a prospective multicenter study using the LCD, bilateral SIS placement was technically successful in 25 (96%) of 26 patients in a single session. The final technical and functional success rates were 100% and 89%, respectively.[11]The study did not explored any factors related to technical success and no further study has been reported.

    The present study aimed to assess the high technical and functional success rates of LCD and investigated the factors related to technical success in bilateral SIS placement for malignant hilar obstruction.

    Methods

    Patients

    We retrospectively analyzed the endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) prospectively maintained database of Seoul National University Hospital that contains information about consecutively enrolled patients. The patients who underwent bilateral SIS placement for malignant hilar obstruction between December 2011 and March 2014 were identified. Among them, those who underwent stent insertion using LCD were included in this study. The diagnosis of malignant hilar obstruction was made principally on the basis of computed tomography (CT) and/or magnetic resonance image (MRI), and was confirmed by pathologic examination. In our institution, endoscopic bilateral SIS placement is tried for all malignant hilar obstruction cases initially, unless the patient has comorbidities that preclude endoscopic procedures. If endoscopic procedure fails, percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) is considered as rescue therapy. The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Seoul National University Hospital.

    Technique

    LCD has thick nitinol wires (0.203 mm) and the diameter of the stent delivery system is 8 Fr (Fig. 1). All patients underwent the procedures under conscious sedation with intravenous midazolam and meperidine. Standard duodenoscopes were used (TJF-240 and 260 V; Olympus, Tokyo, Japan), and an experienced pancreatobiliary endoscopist (Lee SH) carried out all of the procedures. An endoscopic biliary sphincterotomy was performed routinely, and two guidewires were placed through the hilar stricture into the left and right intrahepatic ducts. A 10-mm diameter LCD was used as the first or second stent; the stent was advanced over a guidewire inserted into the left hepatic duct and placed across the hilar stricture. After deployment of the first stent, the guidewire across the first stent was withdrawn and then inserted into the right hepatic duct via the mesh of the first stent. The other guidewire was used as a landmark and the second LCD was deployed over the reinserted guidewire. If it was difficult to insert the guidewire or second LCD into the undrained duct through the mesh of the first stent, the hilar stricture was dilated up to 6 or 8 mm using a Hurricane biliary balloon dilation catheter (Boston Scientific, Natick, MA, USA) prior to a second attempt of guidewire insertion or second LCD. If the second LCD insertion failed after balloon dilation, a HANAROSTENT (M. I. TECH, Seoul, Korea) or BONASTENT (Standard Sci-Tech, Seoul, Korea) having a slimmer delivery system (7 Fr) was used in place of the LCD. The procedure was performed under fluoroscopic guidance.

    Study outcomes and definition of events

    Fig. 1. Niti-S large cell D-type stent.

    Study outcomes were described according to a stan-

    dardized system for reporting biliary stents, the Tokyo criteria 2014.[12]Primary outcomes were technical success and LCD success rates. Secondary outcomes were functional success, complications, median time to recurrent biliary obstruction and overall survival. Technical success was designated as successful deployment of a SEMS in the intended location with sufficient coverage of the stricture. LCD success was defined as technical success using only LCDs (Fig. 2). Functional success was defined as reduction in serum bilirubin to normal value (≤1.2 mg/dL) or less than half of the pretreatment level. We assumed that masses obstructing the bile duct could disturb stent insertion. Therefore, CT and/or MRI findings were reviewed to check the presence of mass obstructing the biliary confluence (MOC). MOC was defined as a measurable mass that obstructed the confluence of the right and left intrahepatic ducts (Fig. 3). Intrahepatic and mass-forming hilar cholangiocarcinoma is MOC if the mass obstructs the confluence. Infiltrating hilar cholangiocarcinoma, without mass formation, is not MOC. Gallbladder cancer is MOC if the main mass obstructs the confluence. If the main mass is confined to the gallbladder and infiltrates to the confluence, gallbladder cancer is not MOC. Complications included pancreatitis, cholecystitis and cholangitis. Recurrent biliary obstruction was defined as a composite endpoint of either stent occlusion or migration, and time to recurrent biliary obstruction refers to the interval from SEMS placement to the recurrence of biliary obstruction. Death without recurrent biliary obstruction was treated as a censored case at the time of death.

    Fig. 2. Bilateral stent-in-stent placement.

    Fig. 3. A: A patient with mass obstructing the biliary confluence (MOC). Bilateral stent placement failed for the patient. B: A patient without MOC; periductal infiltrating tumor was observed. Bilateral stent placement was successful for the patient.

    Statistical analysis

    All statistical analyses were performed with SPSS 20.0 (SPSS, Chicago, IL, USA). Continuous variables were described by mean or median values. For reporting mean, the value of standard deviation (SD) was included, and median was reported with interquartile range (IQR). Categorical variables were given as counts and percentages. Median time to recurrent biliary obstruction and overall survival were assessed by the Kaplan-Meier method. Student’s t test or the Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare pairs of continuous variables, and the Fisher’s exact test was performed to compare categorical variables. A P value <0.05 was considered statistically significant.

    Results

    Clinical characteristics

    A total of 33 patients underwent endoscopic bilateral SIS placement for malignant hilar obstruction between December 2011 and March 2014, and 31 patients underwent the procedure with LCD. Table 1 summarizes their baseline characteristics. The mean age of the patients was 67.0±14.0 years. Most (51.6%) of the patients were male. Cholangiocarcinoma was detected in 58.1% of the patients, followed by gallbladder cancer in 29.0%, and metastatic cancer in 12.9%. According to the Bismuth classification, type IV was the most common type (48.4%), followed by type III (35.5%) and type II (16.1%). MOC was present in 32.3% (10/31) of the patients.

    Primary outcomes

    Technical success was observed in 26 of the 31 (83.9%) LCD patients. The first LCD was placed successfully in all 31 patients, and the second stent insertion failed in 5 pa-

    tients (Table 2); two patients failed because the guidewire could not be placed via the mesh of the first stent. They underwent PTBD as rescue therapy. The other three patients failed because the second stent and balloon dilation catheter could not be advanced through the first stent, although guidewire passage was successful (Table 3). One patient underwent subsequent PTBD. Among the 26 patients who achieved technical success, three received stents other than LCD as the second stent; accordingly, LCD success was achieved in 23 of the 31 patients (74.2%; Fig. 4). Technical success and LCD success were achieved in a single session. Technical success rate was higher in patients without MOC than in those with MOC (95.2% vs 60.0%, P=0.03).

    Secondary outcomes

    The secondary outcomes are summarized in Table 2. Functional recovery was noted in 24 (77.4%) of the 31 patients but failed in two patients after bilateral stent insertion. PTBD was performed for patients with persistent hyperbilirubinemia and cholangitis after stent placement. Of the patients, 29.0% had complications including cholangitis (22.6%), followed by pancreatitis (6.5%) and cholecystitis (3.2%). These complications were seen more frequently in patients with MOC, but there was no statistical significance (50.0% vs 19.0%, P=0.11). A 78-year-old man with MOC died of cholangitis and cholecystitis after failure of stent placement. He died after 12 days although PTBD and percutaneous cholecystostomy were performed. Stent occlusion developed in 12 (38.7%) patients. Endoscopic reintervention was successful in five patients. Metal stent was re-inserted in two patients and plastic stent was placed in another two patients. A patient underwent only sludge removal. PTBD was performed for the other seven patients. The median time to recurrent biliary obstruction was 188 days (IQR, 82-675 days; Fig. 5) and the median overall survival was 175 days (IQR, 57-343 days).

    Table 1. Clinical characteristics (n, %)

    Table 2. Primary and secondary outcomes

    Table 3. Details of technical failure

    Fig. 4. Patient cohort: bilateral stent-in-stent placement for malignant hilar obstruction using LCD between December 2011 and March 2014.

    Fig. 5. Kaplan-Meier curve showing time to recurrent biliary obstruction.

    Discussion

    Endoscope-mediated bilateral SEMS insertion is effective for palliation of biliary obstruction. The SIS method is physiologic and enables the insertion of a larger diameter SEMS compared to side-by-side placement. However, bilateral SIS placement is technically challenging when tried with conventional SEMS. Presently, bilateral SIS placement was technically successful in 83.9% of cases. If the analysis was confined to cases using only LCDs, the technical success rate was 74.2%.

    LCD reportedly can achieve a high technical success rate in patients with malignant hilar obstruction.[11]The final technical success rate of the study (100%) exceeded the rate in the present study. In the prior study, the procedure was retried the following day when the second stent delivery through the first stent was unsuccessful. Presently, the strategy was to use different kinds of stents in place of LCD. Direct comparison between the two studies is hindered by differences in the study designs. Nonetheless, the technical success rate using only LCDs in a single session in the prior study (96.2%) exceeded the present rate of 74.2%. The reason for the difference is uncertain. Cholangiocarcinoma and gallbladder cancer comprised most cases in both studies. Mean total bilirubin levels in the prior study (7.3 mg/dL) and current study (9.0 mg/dL) were comparable. Bismuth type II obstruction was more frequent (38.5%), and types III and IV obstruction was less frequent (23.1% and 38.5%) in the previous study than the present study (type II: 16.1%, type III: 35.5%, type IV: 48.4%). In our study, the technical success rate was 100% for type II cases and was lower in type III (81.8%) and IV (80.0%) cases, although the difference was not statistically significant. There is no evidence that Bismuth type II is more favorable than type III or IV in endoscopic bilateral stenting. One study[13]reported that percutaneous SEMS might be superior to endoscopic intervention in Bismuth type III and IV cases, although type II cases were not included.

    Presently, patients with MOC displayed a low technical success rate. To exclude the influence of confounding factors, baseline characteristics were compared between patients with and without MOC, and there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups. The presence of MOC could be a factor that preluded technical failure. In bilateral SIS placement, the guidewire and second stent should be advanced through the mesh of the first stent. It is not easy to pass the guidewire via the stent mesh and place it at the specific intrahepatic duct intended to drain. MOC can further complicate the procedure, because the guidewire should pass both the first stent mesh and the mass. Even if guidewire passage is successful, the advancement of the second stent can fail.

    MOC was present in about a third of patients in the current study. However, since the presence of masses was not reported in the previous LCD study,[11]it is not clear whether the presence of MOC induced the difference in technical success rates between studies. MOC may not be the main cause of the difference. Other factors like the different skills of the attending endoscopists and assistants could be influential. In the present study, the endoscopist and assistants were experienced and welltrained. They performed over 1000 ERCP procedures annually. In addition, the technical success rate in the first half of the patients (87.5%) was no lower than that of the second half patients (80.0%, P=0.34). Therefore, skills are likely not an explanation for the lower technical success rate (Table 2).

    Several prospective studies tested the usefulness of specially designed stents other than LCD for bilateral SIS placement. The reported technical success rates ranged from 85.3% to 95.2%,[8-10,14]with the technical success rates in a single session being 77%-78.6%.[9,10]These rates are comparable to those of the present study. Kawakubo et al[15]reported risk factors for technical failure in endoscopic bilateral SIS placement in a retrospective study. Metastatic disease was a significant risk factor for technical failure in their study, and the extrinsic nature of biliary stricture and requirement for multiple procedures were considered as causes of high technical failure in metastatic lesion. Our study showed similar outcomes. Technical failure tended to occur more frequently in metastasis than non-metastasis, although it was not statistically significant (P=0.11). Type II error cannot be ruled out because of a small number of metastasis cases (n=4) in our study.

    In patients who had failure of the second LCD placement after successful guidewire insertion, conventional stents were used instead of LCD. This strategy was suc-

    cessful in three of six patients. This can be explained by the difference of stent delivery systems. The LCD delivery system has a relatively large diameter (8 Fr), whereas conventional stents have delivery systems with a smaller diameter (7 Fr), which may facilitate the passage of stents through the mesh of the first stent. The same approach was tried elsewhere.[14]When the second stent could not be advanced along the guidewire, a different stent with a slimmer delivery system was used successfully in most patients. Kawakubo et al[15]suggested that SEMS with a large mesh and thin delivery system might be preferable to SEMS with a small mesh and thick delivery system in the subgroup analysis mentioned above, which supports the finding of our study. Although stents with a slimmer delivery system can be a solution to a failed second LCD placement, it cannot be used in case of guidewire insertion failure. In addition, no patients with MOC succeeded technically even after changing the second LCD to the conventional stent.

    The functional success rate (77.4%) in the current study was lower than that (89%) of the previous LCD study. The lower functional success rate reflects the lower technical success rate. With the exception of technical failure, the functional success rate was 92.3% in 24 of 26 patients. Although the definitions of functional success were heterogeneous, the functional success rates varied from 92.9% to 100% in patients who were technically successful in previous studies.[8-10,14,16]These results were comparable to ours.

    The early complication rate (29.0%) in the present study was about twice as high as that of the LCD study (15%).[11]However, the complication rate in patients without MOC was 19.0%, similar to the LCD study. Since the presence of masses was not reported in the LCD study, whether the presence of MOC induces the different rate of complications is not clear. In the present study, cholangitis was the most complication, which reflects the lower technical success rate. The drainage of contaminated bile duct was accentuated for cholangitis prevention as reported[17]which likely explains the relatively high complication rate in our study. Stent occlusion developed in about a third of patients in the present study. Since this was a retrospective study, the management of stent occlusion was not unified. About half of the patients underwent endoscopic reintervention and the remaining, PTBD. Therefore, comparison with the LCD study, in which endoscopic reintervention was performed for all stent occlusion cases,[11]is difficult. In 12 patients with stent occlusion, MOC was present initially in 3 patients, of whom one underwent endoscopic reintervention. Of the remaining 9 patients without MOC, four underwent endoscopic reintervention.

    The median time to recurrent biliary obstruction and overall survival (188 and 175 days, respectively) were comparable to those of the LCD study (157 and 220 days, respectively). The comparable median overall survival was explained by the similar patient composition. Unresectable cholangiocarcinoma and gallbladder cancer comprised most of the cases.[11]

    There are some limitations in our study. Firstly, selection bias may have been introduced due to the retrospective nature of the study. Secondly, the study was carried out at a single institution and all procedures were performed by one endoscopist. Therefore, our findings might not be generalizable. Further studies will be needed to validate our findings.

    In conclusion, LCD is efficiently used for bilateral SIS placement in patients with malignant hilar obstruction. However, the risk of technical failure increases in patients with MOC, and caution should be taken to prevent complications in these patients.

    Contributors: LSH proposed the study. PJM and LJM wrote the first draft. PJM, CKH and JDK collected and analyzed the data. RJK, KYT and PWH revised the article for important intellectual content. All authors contributed to the design and interpretation of the study and to further drafts. LSH is the guarantor.

    Funding: This study was supported by a grant from Daewoong Education Fund (800-20140081).

    Ethical approval: The study protocol was reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Board of Seoul National University Hospital (H-1312-013-540).

    Competing interest: No benefits in any form have been received or will be received from a commercial party related directly or indirectly to the subject of this article.

    1 Jarnagin WR, Burke E, Powers C, Fong Y, Blumgart LH. Intrahepatic biliary enteric bypass provides effective palliation in selected patients with malignant obstruction at the hepatic duct confluence. Am J Surg 1998;175:453-460.

    2 Nakeeb A, Pitt HA, Sohn TA, Coleman J, Abrams RA, Piantadosi S, et al. Cholangiocarcinoma. A spectrum of intrahepatic, perihilar, and distal tumors. Ann Surg 1996;224:463-475.

    3 Perdue DG, Freeman ML, DiSario JA, Nelson DB, Fennerty MB, Lee JG, et al. Plastic versus self-expanding metallic stents for malignant hilar biliary obstruction: a prospective multicenter observational cohort study. J Clin Gastroenterol 2008;42:1040-1046.

    4 Vienne A, Hobeika E, Gouya H, Lapidus N, Fritsch J, Choury AD, et al. Prediction of drainage effectiveness during endoscopic stenting of malignant hilar strictures: the role of liver volume assessment. Gastrointest Endosc 2010;72:728-735.

    5 Naitoh I, Hayashi K, Nakazawa T, Okumura F, Miyabe K, Shimizu S, et al. Side-by-side versus stent-in-stent deployment in bilateral endoscopic metal stenting for malignant hilar biliary obstruction. Dig Dis Sci 2012;57:3279-3285.

    6 Gerges C, Schumacher B, Terheggen G, Neuhaus H. Expandable metal stents for malignant hilar biliary obstruction. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am 2011;21:481-497.

    7 Kogure H, Isayama H, Kawakubo K, Sasaki T, Yamamoto N, Hirano K, et al. Endoscopic bilateral metallic stenting for malignant hilar obstruction using newly designed stents. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci 2011;18:653-657.

    8 Kim JY, Kang DH, Kim HW, Choi CW, Kim ID, Hwang JH, et al. Usefulness of slimmer and open-cell-design stents for endoscopic bilateral stenting and endoscopic revision in patients with hilar cholangiocarcinoma (with video). Gastrointest Endosc 2009;70:1109-1115.

    9 Park do H, Lee SS, Moon JH, Choi HJ, Cha SW, Kim JH, et al. Newly designed stent for endoscopic bilateral stent-in-stent placement of metallic stents in patients with malignant hilar biliary strictures: multicenter prospective feasibility study (with videos). Gastrointest Endosc 2009;69:1357-1360.

    10 Lee TH, Moon JH, Kim JH, Park DH, Lee SS, Choi HJ, et al. Primary and revision efficacy of cross-wired metallic stents for endoscopic bilateral stent-in-stent placement in malignant hilar biliary strictures. Endoscopy 2013;45:106-113.

    11 Kogure H, Isayama H, Nakai Y, Tsujino T, Matsubara S, Yashima Y, et al. High single-session success rate of endoscopic bilateral stent-in-stent placement with modified large cell Niti-S stents for malignant hilar biliary obstruction. Dig Endosc 2014;26:93-99.

    12 Isayama H, Hamada T, Yasuda I, Itoi T, Ryozawa S, Nakai Y, et al. TOKYO criteria 2014 for transpapillary biliary stenting. Dig Endosc 2015;27:259-264.

    13 Paik WH, Park YS, Hwang JH, Lee SH, Yoon CJ, Kang SG, et al. Palliative treatment with self-expandable metallic stents in patients with advanced type III or IV hilar cholangiocarcinoma: a percutaneous versus endoscopic approach. Gastrointest Endosc 2009;69:55-62.

    14 Hwang JC, Kim JH, Lim SG, Kim SS, Yoo BM, Cho SW. Y-shaped endoscopic bilateral metal stent placement for malignant hilar biliary obstruction: prospective long-term study. Scand J Gastroenterol 2011;46:326-332.

    15 Kawakubo K, Kawakami H, Toyokawa Y, Otani K, Kuwatani M, Abe Y, et al. Risk factors for technical failure of endoscopic double self-expandable metallic stent placement by partial stent-in-stent method. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci 2015;22:79-85.

    16 Kawamoto H, Tsutsumi K, Harada R, Fujii M, Kato H, Hirao K, et al. Endoscopic deployment of multiple JOSTENT SelfX is effective and safe in treatment of malignant hilar biliary strictures. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2008;6:401-408.

    17 De Palma GD, Pezzullo A, Rega M, Persico M, Patrone F, Mastantuono L, et al. Unilateral placement of metallic stents for malignant hilar obstruction: a prospective study. Gastrointest Endosc 2003;58:50-53.

    Received November 2, 2015

    Accepted after revision March 24, 2016

    Author Affiliations: Department of Internal Medicine and Liver Research Institute, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea (Park JM, Lee SH, Chung KH, Jang DK, Ryu JK and Kim YT); Department of Internal Medicine, Kangwon National University Hospital, Kangwon National University School of Medicine, Chuncheon, Korea (Park JM); Department of Internal Medicine, Gyeongsang National University Hospital, Gyeongsang National University College of Medicine, Jinju, Korea (Lee JM); Department of Internal Medicine, Inje University Ilsan Paik Hospital, Koyang, Korea (Paik WH)

    Sang Hyub Lee, MD, PhD, Department of Internal Medicine, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul National University College of Medicine, 101 Daehak-ro, Jongno-gu, Seoul 110-744, Korea (Tel: +82-2-2072-4892; Fax: +82-2-762-9662; Email: gidoctor@snuh.org) ? 2016, Hepatobiliary Pancreat Dis Int. All rights reserved.

    10.1016/S1499-3872(16)60107-8

    Published online June 7, 2016.

    久久影院123| 欧美日韩综合久久久久久| 精品第一国产精品| 欧美激情国产日韩精品一区| √禁漫天堂资源中文www| 色婷婷久久久亚洲欧美| 欧美最新免费一区二区三区| 午夜久久久在线观看| 久久久久精品性色| av网站免费在线观看视频| 超碰97精品在线观看| 精品国产乱码久久久久久小说| 老司机影院成人| videos熟女内射| 久久精品国产自在天天线| 国产精品蜜桃在线观看| 免费不卡的大黄色大毛片视频在线观看| 在线观看免费视频网站a站| 成人18禁高潮啪啪吃奶动态图| 新久久久久国产一级毛片| www.熟女人妻精品国产 | kizo精华| 综合色丁香网| 美女主播在线视频| 国产成人精品在线电影| 9色porny在线观看| 免费大片黄手机在线观看| 国内精品宾馆在线| 色视频在线一区二区三区| 伦理电影免费视频| 哪个播放器可以免费观看大片| 一区二区三区精品91| 男的添女的下面高潮视频| 91午夜精品亚洲一区二区三区| 欧美bdsm另类| 少妇的逼好多水| 制服人妻中文乱码| 免费av中文字幕在线| 少妇被粗大猛烈的视频| 精品一区二区免费观看| 黑人高潮一二区| 国产成人av激情在线播放| 亚洲 欧美一区二区三区| 高清欧美精品videossex| 侵犯人妻中文字幕一二三四区| 久久久精品区二区三区| 日韩精品免费视频一区二区三区 | 少妇人妻 视频| 亚洲综合色网址| 午夜免费鲁丝| 天天躁夜夜躁狠狠躁躁| 亚洲久久久国产精品| 国产日韩欧美在线精品| 国产成人精品福利久久| 黄片无遮挡物在线观看| 国产亚洲午夜精品一区二区久久| 亚洲综合精品二区| 男人舔女人的私密视频| 蜜桃在线观看..| 久久精品人人爽人人爽视色| 国产精品一国产av| 黑人猛操日本美女一级片| 久久精品久久精品一区二区三区| 久久人人爽人人片av| 极品少妇高潮喷水抽搐| 精品酒店卫生间| 国产精品 国内视频| 2018国产大陆天天弄谢| 五月玫瑰六月丁香| 在线观看三级黄色| 精品国产国语对白av| 国产精品一区www在线观看| 亚洲精品国产av蜜桃| 精品一品国产午夜福利视频| 香蕉丝袜av| 超色免费av| 欧美人与性动交α欧美精品济南到 | 黑人猛操日本美女一级片| 丝袜美足系列| 纯流量卡能插随身wifi吗| 久热这里只有精品99| 女性生殖器流出的白浆| 观看av在线不卡| 日韩av免费高清视频| 国精品久久久久久国模美| 最近2019中文字幕mv第一页| 久久久久久久亚洲中文字幕| 夫妻性生交免费视频一级片| 日本午夜av视频| 夫妻午夜视频| 高清欧美精品videossex| 建设人人有责人人尽责人人享有的| 久久精品国产a三级三级三级| 久久久精品免费免费高清| 久久精品人人爽人人爽视色| 五月伊人婷婷丁香| 久久午夜综合久久蜜桃| av女优亚洲男人天堂| 黑人巨大精品欧美一区二区蜜桃 | 97精品久久久久久久久久精品| 免费不卡的大黄色大毛片视频在线观看| 国产色婷婷99| xxxhd国产人妻xxx| 天堂中文最新版在线下载| 在线亚洲精品国产二区图片欧美| 亚洲国产精品一区三区| 欧美精品一区二区免费开放| 亚洲成av片中文字幕在线观看 | 一边亲一边摸免费视频| 蜜臀久久99精品久久宅男| 亚洲久久久国产精品| 少妇人妻精品综合一区二区| 久久久久久久久久久久大奶| 18禁观看日本| 久久 成人 亚洲| 亚洲av国产av综合av卡| 在线观看人妻少妇| 亚洲av免费高清在线观看| 日本午夜av视频| 亚洲人成77777在线视频| 久久久久久人人人人人| 人人妻人人添人人爽欧美一区卜| 国产精品久久久久久av不卡| 18禁观看日本| 国产一区二区激情短视频 | 男女下面插进去视频免费观看 | 18禁裸乳无遮挡动漫免费视频| 日日摸夜夜添夜夜爱| 亚洲精品第二区| av在线老鸭窝| 99国产综合亚洲精品| 国产国语露脸激情在线看| 女人精品久久久久毛片| 久久青草综合色| 一二三四在线观看免费中文在 | 色5月婷婷丁香| 午夜福利网站1000一区二区三区| 亚洲综合色网址| videossex国产| 如何舔出高潮| 久久久久国产网址| 男的添女的下面高潮视频| 日韩制服骚丝袜av| 9191精品国产免费久久| av线在线观看网站| 大香蕉久久网| 国产一区二区三区av在线| 夫妻午夜视频| 免费黄色在线免费观看| 少妇被粗大的猛进出69影院 | 免费看光身美女| 亚洲一区二区三区欧美精品| 一级毛片电影观看| 一二三四在线观看免费中文在 | 成人毛片60女人毛片免费| 国产成人免费观看mmmm| 高清欧美精品videossex| 极品少妇高潮喷水抽搐| 你懂的网址亚洲精品在线观看| 少妇被粗大猛烈的视频| 亚洲精品国产色婷婷电影| 少妇人妻精品综合一区二区| 亚洲欧美成人精品一区二区| 只有这里有精品99| 人人澡人人妻人| 欧美成人午夜精品| 国产成人一区二区在线| 亚洲av国产av综合av卡| 高清av免费在线| 日本欧美国产在线视频| 美女中出高潮动态图| 在线天堂最新版资源| 日韩制服骚丝袜av| 亚洲精品国产av成人精品| 狠狠精品人妻久久久久久综合| 久久亚洲国产成人精品v| 视频在线观看一区二区三区| 国产亚洲最大av| a级毛片黄视频| 免费少妇av软件| 人体艺术视频欧美日本| 亚洲精品色激情综合| 国语对白做爰xxxⅹ性视频网站| 国产精品蜜桃在线观看| av有码第一页| freevideosex欧美| 久久综合国产亚洲精品| 黄网站色视频无遮挡免费观看| 80岁老熟妇乱子伦牲交| 亚洲精品久久久久久婷婷小说| 国产亚洲午夜精品一区二区久久| 麻豆乱淫一区二区| 日韩成人伦理影院| 亚洲美女黄色视频免费看| 丰满迷人的少妇在线观看| 黄色视频在线播放观看不卡| 另类亚洲欧美激情| 国产一区二区三区av在线| 黄片播放在线免费| 国产欧美日韩一区二区三区在线| 亚洲成人av在线免费| 国产一区二区在线观看av| 久久青草综合色| 香蕉精品网在线| 国产一区二区三区综合在线观看 | 国产成人免费无遮挡视频| 在线亚洲精品国产二区图片欧美| 色网站视频免费| 日本vs欧美在线观看视频| 亚洲成人手机| 一级爰片在线观看| 精品福利永久在线观看| 最近最新中文字幕免费大全7| 人妻人人澡人人爽人人| 国产色婷婷99| 日韩人妻精品一区2区三区| 欧美另类一区| 国产精品国产三级国产专区5o| kizo精华| 草草在线视频免费看| 久久韩国三级中文字幕| 国产色爽女视频免费观看| 久久久久久久久久人人人人人人| 啦啦啦在线观看免费高清www| 国内精品宾馆在线| 人妻 亚洲 视频| a级毛片在线看网站| www.熟女人妻精品国产 | 99国产综合亚洲精品| 色婷婷av一区二区三区视频| 免费日韩欧美在线观看| 免费少妇av软件| 寂寞人妻少妇视频99o| 国产男人的电影天堂91| 性色av一级| 国产在线视频一区二区| 精品久久久久久电影网| 精品一区二区三区视频在线| 国产精品国产av在线观看| 久久99精品国语久久久| 久久97久久精品| 三上悠亚av全集在线观看| 国产免费现黄频在线看| 成人国语在线视频| 51国产日韩欧美| 欧美激情 高清一区二区三区| 国产一区二区三区av在线| 91在线精品国自产拍蜜月| 纯流量卡能插随身wifi吗| 日韩熟女老妇一区二区性免费视频| 久久精品国产自在天天线| 国产成人免费无遮挡视频| 乱人伦中国视频| 亚洲av中文av极速乱| 丰满少妇做爰视频| 国产一区二区激情短视频 | 亚洲欧美日韩另类电影网站| 亚洲人成77777在线视频| 中文字幕最新亚洲高清| 久久狼人影院| av免费在线看不卡| 免费黄网站久久成人精品| 久久免费观看电影| av电影中文网址| 精品一区二区三卡| 五月伊人婷婷丁香| 亚洲四区av| 久久av网站| 亚洲国产av影院在线观看| 曰老女人黄片| 欧美激情极品国产一区二区三区 | 青春草视频在线免费观看| 婷婷色麻豆天堂久久| 黄色毛片三级朝国网站| 一级爰片在线观看| 日本与韩国留学比较| 丝袜美足系列| 日韩欧美一区视频在线观看| 制服诱惑二区| 国内精品宾馆在线| 国产成人精品福利久久| 黑人猛操日本美女一级片| 香蕉精品网在线| 国产成人精品久久久久久| 免费大片18禁| 久久久a久久爽久久v久久| 日韩人妻精品一区2区三区| 免费观看无遮挡的男女| 午夜免费男女啪啪视频观看| 国产亚洲午夜精品一区二区久久| 日韩精品免费视频一区二区三区 | 蜜桃国产av成人99| 纵有疾风起免费观看全集完整版| 亚洲婷婷狠狠爱综合网| 宅男免费午夜| 亚洲美女视频黄频| 少妇熟女欧美另类| 国产极品天堂在线| 下体分泌物呈黄色| 亚洲第一区二区三区不卡| 啦啦啦视频在线资源免费观看| 国产淫语在线视频| 亚洲精品aⅴ在线观看| 久久午夜综合久久蜜桃| 久热久热在线精品观看| 男女下面插进去视频免费观看 | 亚洲精品一区蜜桃| 欧美精品人与动牲交sv欧美| 热re99久久国产66热| 午夜福利乱码中文字幕| 99热国产这里只有精品6| 中文乱码字字幕精品一区二区三区| 不卡视频在线观看欧美| 大片电影免费在线观看免费| 亚洲精品国产av蜜桃| 中文字幕另类日韩欧美亚洲嫩草| 黑人欧美特级aaaaaa片| 老女人水多毛片| 欧美亚洲 丝袜 人妻 在线| 午夜91福利影院| 赤兔流量卡办理| 日韩不卡一区二区三区视频在线| 亚洲av免费高清在线观看| 高清视频免费观看一区二区| 啦啦啦在线观看免费高清www| 国产精品蜜桃在线观看| 你懂的网址亚洲精品在线观看| 亚洲色图 男人天堂 中文字幕 | 久久人人97超碰香蕉20202| 99视频精品全部免费 在线| 制服人妻中文乱码| 亚洲三级黄色毛片| 欧美日韩视频精品一区| 国产精品一区www在线观看| 性高湖久久久久久久久免费观看| 中文字幕最新亚洲高清| 久久这里有精品视频免费| 精品国产一区二区久久| 丝袜人妻中文字幕| av国产久精品久网站免费入址| 欧美变态另类bdsm刘玥| 99久久中文字幕三级久久日本| 少妇 在线观看| 人人妻人人澡人人爽人人夜夜| 成人影院久久| 亚洲少妇的诱惑av| 久久99蜜桃精品久久| 午夜老司机福利剧场| 国产伦理片在线播放av一区| 国产男人的电影天堂91| 女人被躁到高潮嗷嗷叫费观| freevideosex欧美| 男人爽女人下面视频在线观看| 捣出白浆h1v1| 国产视频首页在线观看| 国产日韩欧美亚洲二区| 亚洲熟女精品中文字幕| 国产精品嫩草影院av在线观看| 91精品三级在线观看| 五月玫瑰六月丁香| 中文字幕亚洲精品专区| 狠狠婷婷综合久久久久久88av| 成人18禁高潮啪啪吃奶动态图| 高清在线视频一区二区三区| 免费人妻精品一区二区三区视频| 欧美 亚洲 国产 日韩一| 久久久久久久久久成人| 97在线视频观看| 亚洲美女搞黄在线观看| 国产黄色免费在线视频| 中文字幕精品免费在线观看视频 | 亚洲成国产人片在线观看| 秋霞在线观看毛片| 国产成人精品久久久久久| 美女福利国产在线| 欧美人与善性xxx| 亚洲国产精品专区欧美| 免费黄色在线免费观看| 亚洲av日韩在线播放| 久久青草综合色| 在线观看免费视频网站a站| 久久精品国产自在天天线| 亚洲人与动物交配视频| 久久人妻熟女aⅴ| xxxhd国产人妻xxx| 久久毛片免费看一区二区三区| 女人精品久久久久毛片| 久热久热在线精品观看| 亚洲一区二区三区欧美精品| 国产亚洲精品久久久com| 99re6热这里在线精品视频| 精品午夜福利在线看| 中文字幕亚洲精品专区| 欧美精品一区二区免费开放| 中文乱码字字幕精品一区二区三区| 久热久热在线精品观看| 九九爱精品视频在线观看| 免费观看a级毛片全部| 三上悠亚av全集在线观看| 搡女人真爽免费视频火全软件| 成年av动漫网址| 国产麻豆69| 国产乱人偷精品视频| 亚洲av.av天堂| 亚洲av在线观看美女高潮| 99久久中文字幕三级久久日本| 少妇精品久久久久久久| 日韩av免费高清视频| 午夜免费男女啪啪视频观看| 精品少妇久久久久久888优播| 看免费成人av毛片| 成人无遮挡网站| 国产精品久久久久久久电影| 美女国产高潮福利片在线看| 欧美亚洲 丝袜 人妻 在线| 婷婷色av中文字幕| 亚洲国产av新网站| 夜夜爽夜夜爽视频| 夫妻午夜视频| 亚洲精品美女久久久久99蜜臀 | 色94色欧美一区二区| 精品国产国语对白av| 肉色欧美久久久久久久蜜桃| 熟女人妻精品中文字幕| 日本av免费视频播放| 中文字幕免费在线视频6| 国产精品秋霞免费鲁丝片| 在线观看人妻少妇| 欧美另类一区| 日本黄色日本黄色录像| 欧美日韩国产mv在线观看视频| 中文字幕另类日韩欧美亚洲嫩草| 水蜜桃什么品种好| 国产日韩欧美亚洲二区| 日日啪夜夜爽| 亚洲综合精品二区| 日本黄大片高清| 最近2019中文字幕mv第一页| 国产 一区精品| 久久久久久人人人人人| 日本wwww免费看| 国产精品麻豆人妻色哟哟久久| 有码 亚洲区| 久久av网站| 久久 成人 亚洲| 在线天堂最新版资源| 亚洲国产精品成人久久小说| 超色免费av| 国产欧美日韩一区二区三区在线| 一本—道久久a久久精品蜜桃钙片| 精品视频人人做人人爽| 美女xxoo啪啪120秒动态图| 国产一区二区三区综合在线观看 | av有码第一页| 国产成人一区二区在线| 久久精品久久精品一区二区三区| 亚洲成人av在线免费| 男人爽女人下面视频在线观看| 2022亚洲国产成人精品| 男人舔女人的私密视频| 啦啦啦在线观看免费高清www| 男人添女人高潮全过程视频| 亚洲国产欧美在线一区| 久久精品国产鲁丝片午夜精品| 国产黄频视频在线观看| 日日爽夜夜爽网站| 亚洲成色77777| 免费日韩欧美在线观看| 国产黄频视频在线观看| 日日啪夜夜爽| 欧美另类一区| 日韩熟女老妇一区二区性免费视频| 我要看黄色一级片免费的| 精品福利永久在线观看| 飞空精品影院首页| 最近最新中文字幕免费大全7| 一区二区日韩欧美中文字幕 | 80岁老熟妇乱子伦牲交| 高清不卡的av网站| 满18在线观看网站| 妹子高潮喷水视频| 日韩不卡一区二区三区视频在线| 国产淫语在线视频| av在线播放精品| 精品熟女少妇av免费看| 欧美成人午夜精品| 日本vs欧美在线观看视频| 国产xxxxx性猛交| 久久影院123| 色94色欧美一区二区| 国产老妇伦熟女老妇高清| 国产黄频视频在线观看| 丁香六月天网| 成人漫画全彩无遮挡| 亚洲经典国产精华液单| 人妻少妇偷人精品九色| 久久精品国产自在天天线| 免费少妇av软件| 黄片播放在线免费| 狠狠婷婷综合久久久久久88av| 99热全是精品| 美女国产视频在线观看| 另类亚洲欧美激情| 精品卡一卡二卡四卡免费| 22中文网久久字幕| 九九爱精品视频在线观看| 国产男女内射视频| av有码第一页| 欧美精品亚洲一区二区| 久久久久精品久久久久真实原创| 男女无遮挡免费网站观看| 日韩成人av中文字幕在线观看| 99视频精品全部免费 在线| 少妇熟女欧美另类| 久久久久久伊人网av| 午夜免费男女啪啪视频观看| 久久午夜福利片| 久久久亚洲精品成人影院| 国产欧美日韩一区二区三区在线| 日韩av免费高清视频| 黄色配什么色好看| 亚洲国产色片| 久久久久精品久久久久真实原创| 秋霞伦理黄片| 国产精品久久久久久av不卡| 男女边摸边吃奶| 内地一区二区视频在线| 欧美国产精品一级二级三级| 国产白丝娇喘喷水9色精品| 曰老女人黄片| 亚洲欧美成人综合另类久久久| 秋霞伦理黄片| 大片免费播放器 马上看| 亚洲精品自拍成人| 日日啪夜夜爽| 9色porny在线观看| 午夜福利在线观看免费完整高清在| 国产亚洲一区二区精品| 18禁裸乳无遮挡动漫免费视频| 国产成人一区二区在线| 亚洲av免费高清在线观看| 免费观看a级毛片全部| 亚洲三级黄色毛片| 国产免费视频播放在线视频| 国产精品 国内视频| 老熟女久久久| 在线观看国产h片| 久久国产精品大桥未久av| 麻豆乱淫一区二区| 一本色道久久久久久精品综合| 久久久久久久久久成人| 中文乱码字字幕精品一区二区三区| 最黄视频免费看| 成年女人在线观看亚洲视频| 国产精品久久久久久av不卡| 亚洲精品久久久久久婷婷小说| 国产亚洲精品第一综合不卡 | 中文字幕另类日韩欧美亚洲嫩草| 亚洲精品中文字幕在线视频| 自拍欧美九色日韩亚洲蝌蚪91| 亚洲精品美女久久久久99蜜臀 | 欧美日韩精品成人综合77777| 精品国产一区二区三区四区第35| 亚洲精品av麻豆狂野| 免费女性裸体啪啪无遮挡网站| 久热久热在线精品观看| 国产精品三级大全| 色网站视频免费| 国产无遮挡羞羞视频在线观看| 日韩三级伦理在线观看| 岛国毛片在线播放| 亚洲精品第二区| 国产精品国产三级国产av玫瑰| 不卡视频在线观看欧美| 国产精品99久久99久久久不卡 | av福利片在线| 少妇的逼水好多| 午夜福利影视在线免费观看| 免费观看a级毛片全部| 午夜免费观看性视频| 欧美日韩国产mv在线观看视频| 中文欧美无线码| 免费人成在线观看视频色| 大片免费播放器 马上看| 在线观看免费日韩欧美大片| 亚洲欧美色中文字幕在线| 久久 成人 亚洲| 国产极品天堂在线| 巨乳人妻的诱惑在线观看| 午夜福利视频精品| 在线观看免费日韩欧美大片| 国产色婷婷99| 亚洲婷婷狠狠爱综合网| 国产精品无大码| 日韩一区二区视频免费看| 最后的刺客免费高清国语| 免费观看a级毛片全部| 赤兔流量卡办理| 欧美人与性动交α欧美软件 | 日韩精品免费视频一区二区三区 | 岛国毛片在线播放| 99热全是精品| 又粗又硬又长又爽又黄的视频| videosex国产| a级毛色黄片| 国产成人精品婷婷| 久久国产精品大桥未久av| 999精品在线视频| 色哟哟·www| 一级毛片黄色毛片免费观看视频| 999精品在线视频| 男女国产视频网站| 日本黄大片高清| 精品亚洲乱码少妇综合久久| 日本爱情动作片www.在线观看|