Sequential double-guidewire technique and transpancreatic precut sphincterotomy for difficult biliary cannulation.
Аннотация
BACKGROUND/AIMS: The double-guidewire technique (DGT) and transpancreatic precut sphincterotomy (TPS) are introduced as alternative biliary cannulation techniques for difficult biliary cannulation. This study aimed to evaluate the sequential use of DGT and TPS compared with a needle-knife precut papillotomy (NK).
PATIENTS AND
METHODS
Six hundred and thirty-five consecutive patients with naοve papilla and who underwent endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) for biliary cannulation from March 2010 to April 2014 in a single institute were analyzed. When standard techniques were unsuccessful, DGT or NK was performed. TPS was sequentially performed if DGT failed.
RESULTS
DGT and NK were attempted in 65 and 58 patients, respectively. A sequential DGT-TPS was performed in 38 patients after a failed DGT. Biliary cannulations were successful in 42%, 74%, and 66% of the DGT, sequential DGT-TPS, and NK patients, respectively (P = 0.002). The cannulation rate was higher in the DGT ± TPS patients (85%) than in the NK patients (P = 0.014). Post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) developed in 26% of the successful DGT patients, 37% of the sequential DGT-TPS patients, and 10% of the NK patients (P = 0.008). Of the sequential DGT-TPS patients, the incidence of PEP was significantly reduced in patients with a pancreatic duct (PD) stent compared with patients without a PD stent (24% vs. 62%, P = 0.023).
CONCLUSIONS
Sequential DGT-TPS is a useful alternative method compared with NK for patients in whom biliary cannulation is difficult. In the sequential DGT-TPS patients, the incidence of PEP was significantly reduced with the use of a PD stent.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
Подготовка и перевод публикации
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Тип публикации указан по данным источника. Уровень доказательности автоматически не присваивается.