Precut Over a Pancreatic Duct Stent Versus Transpancreatic Precut Sphincterotomy for Difficult Biliary Cannulation in Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

IF 2.5 4区 医学 Q2 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY Digestive Diseases and Sciences Pub Date : 2024-08-31 DOI:10.1007/s10620-024-08603-6
Yang Qi, Qianyi Li, Wenfei Yao, Yuquan Wu, Nengping Li
{"title":"Precut Over a Pancreatic Duct Stent Versus Transpancreatic Precut Sphincterotomy for Difficult Biliary Cannulation in Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography: A Retrospective Cohort Study.","authors":"Yang Qi, Qianyi Li, Wenfei Yao, Yuquan Wu, Nengping Li","doi":"10.1007/s10620-024-08603-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Precut over a pancreatic duct stent (PPDS) and transpancreatic precut sphincterotomy (TPS) with immediate pancreatic duct stent placement are techniques employed to promote biliary access during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in cases of challenging biliary cannulation. However, limited data are available to compare the efficacy of these two pancreatic stent-assisted precut sphincterotomy techniques.</p><p><strong>Aims: </strong>The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of PPDS versus TPS.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A retrospective analysis was performed on the clinical data of consecutive patients who underwent ERCP between April 1, 2019 and May 31, 2023. According to the selected cannulation approaches, patients were assigned to two groups. In the PPDS group, a pancreatic duct stent was initially placed, followed by needle-knife precut over the stent. In the TPS group, transpancreatic precut sphincterotomy was initially performed, followed by immediate pancreatic stent placement. The success rate of biliary cannulation and the incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) between the two groups were analysed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 864 patients who underwent ERCP, 46 patients were equally enrolled in the two groups. Selective bile duct cannulation was successfully achieved in 42 out of 46 (91.3%) cases using the PPDS and in 32 out of 46 (69.6%) cases using TPS technique alone, indicating significantly higher success rate of bile duct cannulation with PPDS compared to TPS (91.3% vs. 69.6%, P = 0.009). The overall success rates for bile duct cannulation were 93.5% and 97.8% in the PPDS and TPS groups, respectively, with no significant difference identified (P = 0.307). PEP occurred in 0 and 4 (8.7%) cases in the PPDS and TPS groups, respectively, with no significant difference between the two groups (8.7% vs. 0%, P = 0.117). There were no cases of bleeding or perforation in either group.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Both PPDS and TPS followed by immediate pancreatic duct stent placement are viable options. TPS stands out for its simplicity and cost-effectiveness, while PPDS is more appropriate for patients who are at a high-risk of developing PEP.</p>","PeriodicalId":11378,"journal":{"name":"Digestive Diseases and Sciences","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Digestive Diseases and Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10620-024-08603-6","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Precut over a pancreatic duct stent (PPDS) and transpancreatic precut sphincterotomy (TPS) with immediate pancreatic duct stent placement are techniques employed to promote biliary access during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in cases of challenging biliary cannulation. However, limited data are available to compare the efficacy of these two pancreatic stent-assisted precut sphincterotomy techniques.

Aims: The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of PPDS versus TPS.

Methods: A retrospective analysis was performed on the clinical data of consecutive patients who underwent ERCP between April 1, 2019 and May 31, 2023. According to the selected cannulation approaches, patients were assigned to two groups. In the PPDS group, a pancreatic duct stent was initially placed, followed by needle-knife precut over the stent. In the TPS group, transpancreatic precut sphincterotomy was initially performed, followed by immediate pancreatic stent placement. The success rate of biliary cannulation and the incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) between the two groups were analysed.

Results: Among 864 patients who underwent ERCP, 46 patients were equally enrolled in the two groups. Selective bile duct cannulation was successfully achieved in 42 out of 46 (91.3%) cases using the PPDS and in 32 out of 46 (69.6%) cases using TPS technique alone, indicating significantly higher success rate of bile duct cannulation with PPDS compared to TPS (91.3% vs. 69.6%, P = 0.009). The overall success rates for bile duct cannulation were 93.5% and 97.8% in the PPDS and TPS groups, respectively, with no significant difference identified (P = 0.307). PEP occurred in 0 and 4 (8.7%) cases in the PPDS and TPS groups, respectively, with no significant difference between the two groups (8.7% vs. 0%, P = 0.117). There were no cases of bleeding or perforation in either group.

Conclusions: Both PPDS and TPS followed by immediate pancreatic duct stent placement are viable options. TPS stands out for its simplicity and cost-effectiveness, while PPDS is more appropriate for patients who are at a high-risk of developing PEP.

Abstract Image

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困难胆道插管的胰管支架预切与经胰管预切括约肌切开术:一项回顾性队列研究。
背景:在胰管支架上预切(PPDS)和立即放置胰管支架的经胰管预切括约肌切开术(TPS)是在内镜逆行胰胆管造影术(ERCP)中用于促进胆道通路的技术,适用于胆道插管困难的病例。目的:本研究旨在比较 PPDS 和 TPS 的疗效:对2019年4月1日至2023年5月31日期间接受ERCP的连续患者的临床数据进行回顾性分析。根据所选的插管方法,患者被分为两组。在 PPDS 组,首先放置胰管支架,然后在支架上进行针刀预切。在 TPS 组,首先进行经胰腺括约肌切开术,然后立即放置胰腺支架。分析了两组胆道插管的成功率和ERCP术后胰腺炎(PEP)的发生率:结果:在接受 ERCP 的 864 名患者中,两组患者人数相同,均为 46 人。使用 PPDS 的 46 例患者中有 42 例(91.3%)成功实现了选择性胆管插管,而单独使用 TPS 技术的 46 例患者中有 32 例(69.6%)成功实现了选择性胆管插管,这表明 PPDS 的胆管插管成功率明显高于 TPS(91.3% 对 69.6%,P = 0.009)。PPDS 组和 TPS 组胆管插管的总体成功率分别为 93.5% 和 97.8%,无明显差异(P = 0.307)。PPDS 组和 TPS 组分别有 0 例和 4 例(8.7%)发生 PEP,两组间无明显差异(8.7% 对 0%,P = 0.117)。两组均无出血或穿孔病例:结论:PPDS和TPS术后立即放置胰管支架都是可行的选择。TPS以其简便性和成本效益脱颖而出,而PPDS则更适合罹患PEP的高危患者。
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
Digestive Diseases and Sciences
Digestive Diseases and Sciences 医学-胃肠肝病学
CiteScore
6.40
自引率
3.20%
发文量
420
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: Digestive Diseases and Sciences publishes high-quality, peer-reviewed, original papers addressing aspects of basic/translational and clinical research in gastroenterology, hepatology, and related fields. This well-illustrated journal features comprehensive coverage of basic pathophysiology, new technological advances, and clinical breakthroughs; insights from prominent academicians and practitioners concerning new scientific developments and practical medical issues; and discussions focusing on the latest changes in local and worldwide social, economic, and governmental policies that affect the delivery of care within the disciplines of gastroenterology and hepatology.
期刊最新文献
Endoscopic Management of Lower Gastrointestinal Tract Anastomosis Strictures: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review of the Literature Development of a Scoring System for Predicting the Difficulty of Bile Duct Cannulation and Selecting the Appropriate Cannulation Method Association of Race and Postoperative Outcomes in Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease Correction to: miR‑9‑5p Suppresses Malignant Biological Behaviors of Human Gastric Cancer Cells by Negative Regulation of TNFAIP8L3 Successful Endoscopic Resection of Multiple Colorectal Leiomyosarcomas: The First Case Report
×
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