Standard Cannulation versus Fistulotomy for Biliary Access in Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography: Should We Expect the Same Success when Treating Choledocholithiasis?

M. Moreira, I. Tarrio, Alda João Andrade, T. Araújo, J. Fernandes, J. Canena, Luís Lopes
{"title":"Standard Cannulation versus Fistulotomy for Biliary Access in Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography: Should We Expect the Same Success when Treating Choledocholithiasis?","authors":"M. Moreira, I. Tarrio, Alda João Andrade, T. Araújo, J. Fernandes, J. Canena, Luís Lopes","doi":"10.1159/000536398","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: To access the common bile duct in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), needle-knife fistulotomy (NKF) can be associated with a shorter sphincterotomy compared to standard cannulation. We aimed to compare the success and safety of NKF versus standard cannulation in the treatment of choledocholithiasis. Methods: A cohort of 379 naïve patients with choledocholithiasis who underwent ERCP between 2005 and 2022 was retrospectively analyzed. The patients were divided into two groups: group A (179 consecutive patients) underwent NKF, while group B (180 patients) received standard biliary access and were matched for stone characteristics and ERCP year. Results: Stone removal success rate for group A was significantly lower than that for group B in the initial ERCP (82.0% vs. 92.1%, p = 0.003). In group A, success rates for stone removal were 90.2%, 80%, and 29.4% for stone sizes <10 mm, 10 mm–15 mm, and >15 mm, respectively (p < 0.001). In contrast, group B showed success rates of 99.2%, 81.5%, and 71.4% for the same stone size categories (p < 0.001). Pancreatitis occurred in 3.7% of group A and 5.8% of group B patients (p = 0.340). Regression analysis revealed that NKF cannulation, stone size (>10 mm), and having 4 or more stones were associated with lower stone removal success compared to standard cannulation in the initial ERCP (OR 0.34, p = 0.015; stone size 10–15 mm: OR 0.20, p < 0.001; stone size >15 mm: OR 0.05, p < 0.001; 4 or more stones: OR 0.4, p = 0.040). Conclusions: The removal of common bile duct stones after NKF access, although safe and effective, is less successful than after a standard cannulation, especially at the baseline ERCP.","PeriodicalId":508782,"journal":{"name":"GE - Portuguese Journal of Gastroenterology","volume":"45 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"GE - Portuguese Journal of Gastroenterology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1159/000536398","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: To access the common bile duct in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), needle-knife fistulotomy (NKF) can be associated with a shorter sphincterotomy compared to standard cannulation. We aimed to compare the success and safety of NKF versus standard cannulation in the treatment of choledocholithiasis. Methods: A cohort of 379 naïve patients with choledocholithiasis who underwent ERCP between 2005 and 2022 was retrospectively analyzed. The patients were divided into two groups: group A (179 consecutive patients) underwent NKF, while group B (180 patients) received standard biliary access and were matched for stone characteristics and ERCP year. Results: Stone removal success rate for group A was significantly lower than that for group B in the initial ERCP (82.0% vs. 92.1%, p = 0.003). In group A, success rates for stone removal were 90.2%, 80%, and 29.4% for stone sizes <10 mm, 10 mm–15 mm, and >15 mm, respectively (p < 0.001). In contrast, group B showed success rates of 99.2%, 81.5%, and 71.4% for the same stone size categories (p < 0.001). Pancreatitis occurred in 3.7% of group A and 5.8% of group B patients (p = 0.340). Regression analysis revealed that NKF cannulation, stone size (>10 mm), and having 4 or more stones were associated with lower stone removal success compared to standard cannulation in the initial ERCP (OR 0.34, p = 0.015; stone size 10–15 mm: OR 0.20, p < 0.001; stone size >15 mm: OR 0.05, p < 0.001; 4 or more stones: OR 0.4, p = 0.040). Conclusions: The removal of common bile duct stones after NKF access, although safe and effective, is less successful than after a standard cannulation, especially at the baseline ERCP.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
内镜逆行胰胆管造影术中胆道通路的标准插管与瘘管切开术:在治疗胆总管结石时,我们是否应该期待同样的成功?
简介:在内镜逆行胰胆管造影术(ERCP)中进入胆总管时,与标准插管相比,针刀造瘘(NKF)可缩短括约肌切开时间。我们的目的是比较 NKF 与标准插管治疗胆总管结石的成功率和安全性。方法:我们对 2005 年至 2022 年期间接受 ERCP 的 379 例胆总管结石患者进行了回顾性分析。这些患者被分为两组:A组(179名连续患者)接受了NKF,而B组(180名患者)接受了标准胆道入路,两组患者的结石特征和ERCP年限相匹配。结果在最初的 ERCP 中,A 组的结石清除成功率明显低于 B 组(82.0% 对 92.1%,P = 0.003)。在 A 组中,结石大小为 15 毫米的成功率分别为 90.2%、80% 和 29.4%(p < 0.001)。相比之下,B 组中相同大小的结石成功率分别为 99.2%、81.5% 和 71.4%(P < 0.001)。A 组有 3.7% 的患者发生了胰腺炎,B 组有 5.8% 的患者发生了胰腺炎(P = 0.340)。回归分析显示,与初次 ERCP 的标准插管相比,NKF 插管、结石大小(>10 毫米)和有 4 个或更多结石与较低的结石清除成功率有关(OR 0.34,p = 0.015;结石大小 10-15 毫米,OR 0.20,p < 0.001):OR 0.20,p < 0.001;结石大小 >15 mm:结石大小 >15 mm:OR 0.05,p < 0.001;4 个或更多结石:OR 0.4,p = 0.001:OR 0.4,p = 0.040)。结论NKF 入路虽然安全有效,但胆总管结石的清除成功率低于标准插管,尤其是在基线 ERCP 时。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Hepatocellular Carcinoma with Vascular and Cardiac Involvement in a Young Patient with Non-Cirrhotic Hepatitis B: A Case Report Implementation of a Microbiological Surveillance Protocol in a Portuguese Tertiary Care Academic Endoscopy Unit Chronic Intestinal Failure and Short Bowel Syndrome in Adults: Principles and Perspectives for the Portuguese Health System Aortoesophageal Fistula Mimicking Dieulafoy Disease: A Case Report Porto-Sinusoidal Vascular Disease and Downhill Varices: Separate Clinical Entities?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1