Needle-Knife Fistulotomy Versus Needle-Knife Papillotomy in Difficult Biliary Cannulation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

IF 1.4 Q4 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY Gastroenterology Research Pub Date : 2024-06-01 Epub Date: 2024-06-29 DOI:10.14740/gr1726
Saqr Alsakarneh, Tim Brotherton, Fouad Jaber, Mahmoud Y Madi, Laith Numan, Mohamed Ahmed, Yazan Sallam, Mohammad Adam, Dushyant Singh Dahiya, Pearl Aggarwal, Fazel Dinary
{"title":"Needle-Knife Fistulotomy Versus Needle-Knife Papillotomy in Difficult Biliary Cannulation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.","authors":"Saqr Alsakarneh, Tim Brotherton, Fouad Jaber, Mahmoud Y Madi, Laith Numan, Mohamed Ahmed, Yazan Sallam, Mohammad Adam, Dushyant Singh Dahiya, Pearl Aggarwal, Fazel Dinary","doi":"10.14740/gr1726","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is an essential endoscopic therapeutic modality for biliary and pancreatic diseases. Needle-knife fistulotomy (NKF) and papillotomy (NKP) are the two most commonly used rescue techniques for patients with difficult biliary cannulation. However, there remains a need for comparative studies on these approaches to inform clinical decision-making. This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of NKF compared to NKP as a rescue technique in difficult biliary cannulation after failed conventional ERCP.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and Web of Science databases through November 2023 to include all studies that directly compared the outcomes of NKF with NKP in difficult biliary cannulation. Single-arm studies were excluded. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for dichotomous data related to clinical events were calculated using the Mantel-Haenszel method within a random-effect model. The primary outcome was the biliary cannulation success rate.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Four studies with 823 patients (n = 376 NKF vs. n = 447 NKP) were included in our analysis. There was no significant difference between the two groups in biliary cannulation success rate (91.7% vs. 86.9%, respectively; OR = 1.54, 95% CI: 0.21 - 2.49, P = 0.14; I<sup>2</sup> = 0%). However, the overall rate of adverse events was significantly lower in the NKF group than in the NKP group (OR = 0.46, 95% CI: 0.25 - 0.84, P = 0.01). Pancreatitis (OR = 0.23, 95% CI: 0.05 - 1.11, P = 0.07) and bleeding (OR = 1.43, 95% CI: 0.59 - 3.46, P = 0.42) were similar between the two groups. No significant differences in cholangitis, cholecystitis, perforation, or mortality were observed.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our meta-analysis indicates comparable success rates in comparing NKF and NKP techniques for difficult biliary cannulation after failed conventional ERCP cannulation. Notably, the NKF technique significantly reduces overall adverse events compared to NKP, suggesting that NKF may be preferable due to its favorable safety profile. Additional randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are warranted to evaluate the interval benefit of an NKF technique.</p>","PeriodicalId":12461,"journal":{"name":"Gastroenterology Research","volume":"17 3","pages":"101-108"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11236341/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Gastroenterology Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14740/gr1726","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/6/29 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is an essential endoscopic therapeutic modality for biliary and pancreatic diseases. Needle-knife fistulotomy (NKF) and papillotomy (NKP) are the two most commonly used rescue techniques for patients with difficult biliary cannulation. However, there remains a need for comparative studies on these approaches to inform clinical decision-making. This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of NKF compared to NKP as a rescue technique in difficult biliary cannulation after failed conventional ERCP.

Methods: We searched PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and Web of Science databases through November 2023 to include all studies that directly compared the outcomes of NKF with NKP in difficult biliary cannulation. Single-arm studies were excluded. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for dichotomous data related to clinical events were calculated using the Mantel-Haenszel method within a random-effect model. The primary outcome was the biliary cannulation success rate.

Results: Four studies with 823 patients (n = 376 NKF vs. n = 447 NKP) were included in our analysis. There was no significant difference between the two groups in biliary cannulation success rate (91.7% vs. 86.9%, respectively; OR = 1.54, 95% CI: 0.21 - 2.49, P = 0.14; I2 = 0%). However, the overall rate of adverse events was significantly lower in the NKF group than in the NKP group (OR = 0.46, 95% CI: 0.25 - 0.84, P = 0.01). Pancreatitis (OR = 0.23, 95% CI: 0.05 - 1.11, P = 0.07) and bleeding (OR = 1.43, 95% CI: 0.59 - 3.46, P = 0.42) were similar between the two groups. No significant differences in cholangitis, cholecystitis, perforation, or mortality were observed.

Conclusions: Our meta-analysis indicates comparable success rates in comparing NKF and NKP techniques for difficult biliary cannulation after failed conventional ERCP cannulation. Notably, the NKF technique significantly reduces overall adverse events compared to NKP, suggesting that NKF may be preferable due to its favorable safety profile. Additional randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are warranted to evaluate the interval benefit of an NKF technique.

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
针刀瘘管切开术与针刀乳头切开术在困难胆道插管中的应用:系统综述与元分析》。
背景:内镜逆行胰胆管造影术(ERCP)是胆道和胰腺疾病的重要内镜治疗方式。针刀瘘管切开术(NKF)和乳头切开术(NKP)是胆道插管困难患者最常用的两种抢救技术。然而,仍然需要对这些方法进行比较研究,以便为临床决策提供依据。本荟萃分析旨在评估 NKF 与 NKP 作为常规 ERCP 失败后困难胆道插管抢救技术的有效性和安全性:我们检索了截至 2023 年 11 月的 PubMed、Scopus、Embase 和 Web of Science 数据库,以纳入所有直接比较 NKF 与 NKP 在困难胆道插管中的疗效的研究。排除了单臂研究。采用随机效应模型中的 Mantel-Haenszel 法计算了与临床事件相关的二分法数据的汇总几率比 (OR) 和 95% 置信区间 (CI)。主要结果为胆道插管成功率:四项研究共纳入了 823 名患者(n = 376 NKF vs. n = 447 NKP)。两组胆道插管成功率无明显差异(分别为 91.7% 对 86.9%;OR = 1.54,95% CI:0.21 - 2.49,P = 0.14;I2 = 0%)。然而,NKF 组的不良事件总发生率明显低于 NKP 组(OR = 0.46,95% CI:0.25 - 0.84,P = 0.01)。胰腺炎(OR = 0.23,95% CI:0.05 - 1.11,P = 0.07)和出血(OR = 1.43,95% CI:0.59 - 3.46,P = 0.42)在两组之间相似。在胆管炎、胆囊炎、穿孔或死亡率方面没有观察到明显差异:我们的荟萃分析表明,比较 NKF 和 NKP 技术在常规 ERCP 插管失败后进行困难胆道插管的成功率不相上下。值得注意的是,与 NKP 相比,NKF 技术大大降低了总体不良事件,这表明 NKF 因其良好的安全性而更受欢迎。有必要进行更多的随机对照试验 (RCT),以评估 NKF 技术的间隔效益。
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
Gastroenterology Research
Gastroenterology Research GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY-
自引率
0.00%
发文量
35
期刊最新文献
Adult-Onset Autoimmune Enteropathy Mimicking Disaccharidase Deficiency. Effect of Pemafibrate on the Lipid Profile, Liver Function, and Liver Fibrosis Among Patients With Metabolic Dysfunction-Associated Steatotic Liver Disease. Extraction Basket Entangled in Surgical Sutures in Common Bile Duct Forty-Five Years After Hepatobiliary Surgery: A Bizarre Adverse Event of Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography. Pre-Cut Papillotomy Versus Endoscopic Ultrasound-Rendezvous for Difficult Biliary Cannulation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Clinical Efficacy of Transcatheter Arterial Chemoembolization Combined With Percutaneous Microwave Coagulation Therapy for Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma.
×
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