Difficult cannulation during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography-needle-knife precut versus transpancreatic sphincterotomy on the basis of successful cannulation and adverse events.

Surg Endosc

Department of Research and Development and Department of Surgery, Central Hospital, Region Kronoberg, Strandvägen 8, 351 85, Växjö, Sweden.

Published: December 2024

AI Article Synopsis

  • This study compared two alternative techniques, transpancreatic sphincterotomy (TPS) and precut sphincterotomy (PCS), for accessing the biliary tree during difficult ERCP procedures.
  • TPS showed higher successful cannulation rates (86.5%) compared to PCS (69.7%), but both were lower than the standard sphincterotomy control group (92.4%).
  • Despite higher cannulation success, TPS was associated with more adverse events (24.1%) compared to PCS (18.8%) and the control group (15.5%), with increased rates of pancreatitis and perforation in the TPS group.

Article Abstract

Background: When cannulation is challenging during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), and the standard guidewire technique with sphincterotomy is unsuccessful, alternative cannulation techniques can be used to access the biliary tree. The purpose of this study was to compare the incidence of adverse events and cannulation success rates between transpancreatic sphincterotomy (TPS) and precut sphincterotomy (PCS).

Methods: Data from the Swedish Registry for Gallstone Surgery and ERCP (GallRiks), collected from 2011 to 2022, were analyzed. A total of 105,303 ERCP procedures were recorded in GallRiks during the study period. After exclusions, the study population consisted of 47,486 ERCP procedures. Of these, 4547 received PCS and 3273 received TPS. The remaining 39,666 ERCP procedures with conventional sphincterotomy served as the control group. The primary endpoints were successful cannulation and adverse events within 30 days.

Results: Successful cannulation was more frequent with the TPS technique than with the PCS technique (86.5% vs. 69.7%), but both groups had a lower cannulation rate than the control group (92.4%; OR-PCS 0.20, 95% CI 0.18-0.21; OR-TPS 0.58, 95% CI 0.52-0.64). The TPS group had a higher incidence of adverse events than the PCS group (24.1% vs. 18.8%) and both groups had a higher incidence of adverse events than the control group (15.5%; OR-PCS 1.25, 95% CI 1.15-1.36; OR-TPS 1.71, 95% CI 1.57-1.87). Adverse events for TPS were driven by a higher incidence of pancreatitis (10.5% vs. 6.4% vs. 4.5%; OR 2.53, 95% CI 2.23-2.86) and perforation (1.6% vs. 0.8% vs. 0.5%; OR 2.99, 95% CI 2.20-4.06) compared to both PCS and control.

Conclusion: TPS is more successful at cannulation than PCS; however, this success comes at a higher cost in terms of adverse events, particularly pancreatitis and perforation.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00464-024-11429-yDOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

adverse events
28
successful cannulation
16
incidence adverse
12
ercp procedures
12
control group
12
higher incidence
12
endoscopic retrograde
8
transpancreatic sphincterotomy
8
cannulation
8
cannulation adverse
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!