Advertisement

Digestive Diseases and Sciences

, Volume 58, Issue 12, pp 3606–3610 | Cite as

Evaluation of Early Precut with Needle-Knife in Difficult Biliary Cannulation During ERCP

  • Jian-hong Zhu
  • Qiang Liu
  • De-qing Zhang
  • Huang Feng
  • Wei-chang Chen
Original Article

Abstract

Background

There is scarce information on whether performing the precut procedure early rather than after several cannulation attempts is associated with different success and complication rates.

Objective

The aim of this retrospective study was is to compare the early precut technique with the standard one in terms of the results and complications.

Methods

The contemporary success rate and postoperative complications in 792 endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography cases were frequently observed during the period from June 2007 to May 2011, and 56 of these cases were carried out with precut biliary sphincterotomy after the standard sphincterotomy had failed.

Results

The success rate for standard sphincterotomy was 89.8 %: 51 out of 56 cases were carried out with precut biliary sphincterotomy and succeeded. The total success rate was 96.3 %. The difference was significant (χ 2 = 25.62, p < 0.01) compared to the success rate of first cannulation, while the difference in complication rates between precut and standard sphincterotomy was minor (9.9 vs. 12.5 %, p > 0.05).

Conclusion

Early precut with a needle-knife in a difficult biliary cannulation was safe and effective if performed by experienced endoscopists.

Keywords

Difficult biliary cannulation Precut biliary sphincterotomy Standard sphincterotome Needle-knife ERCP 

Notes

Conflict of interest

None.

References

  1. 1.
    Cortas GA, Mehta SN, Abraham NS, Barkun AN. Selective cannulation of the common bile duct: a prospective randomized trial comparing standard catheters with sphincterotomes. Gastrointest Endosc. 1999;50(6):775–779.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Larkin CJ, Kees H. Precut sphincterotomy: indications, pitfalls, and complications. Curr Gastroenterol Rep. 2001;3(2):147–153.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Maydeo A, Borkar D. Techniques of selective cannulation and sphincterotomy. Endoscopy. 2003;35(8):S19–S23.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kahaleh M, Tokar J, Mullick T, Bickston SJ, Yeaton P. Prospective evaluation of pancreatic sphincterotomy as a precut technique for biliary cannulation. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2004;2(11):971–977.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cotton P, Lehman G, Vennes J, et al. Endoscopic sphincterotomy complications and their management: an attempt at consensus. Gastrointest Endosc. 1991;37(3):383–393.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cotton PB. Outcomes of endoscopy procedures: struggling towards definitions. Gastrointest Endosc. 1994;40(4):514–518.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rollhauser C, Johnson M, Al-Kawas F. Needle-knife papillotomy: a helpful and safe adjunct to endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in a selected population. Endoscopy. 1998;30(8):691.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Freeman ML, Nelson DB, Sherman S, et al. Complications of endoscopic biliary sphincterotomy. N Engl J Med. 1996;335(13):909–919.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Vandervoort J, Soetikno RM, Tham TC, et al. Risk factors for complications after performance of ERCP. Gastrointest Endosc. 2002;56(5):652–656.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cooper ST, Slivka A. Incidence, risk factors, and prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis. Gastroenterol Clin North Am. 2007;36(2):259–276.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bruins SW, Schoeman M, Disario J, Wolters F, Tytgat G, Huibregtse K. Needle-knife sphincterotomy as a precut procedure: a retrospective evaluation of efficacy and complications. Endoscopy. 1996;28(4):334–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kasmin FE, Cohen D, Batra S, Cohen SA, Siegel JH. Needle-knife sphincterotomy in a tertiary referral center: efficacy and complications. Gastrointest Endosc. 1996;44(1):48–53.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bolzan H, Spatola J, Gonzalez J, Luna R, Garcia G. Precut Vater’s papilla. Prospective evaluation of frequency of use, effectiveness, complication and mortality. Cooperative study in the northwest of the province of Buenos Aires. Acta Gastroenterol Latinoam. 2001;31(4):323–327.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Burdick JS, London A, Thompson DR. Intramural incision technique. Gastrointest Endosc. 2002;55(3):425–427.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Misra SP, Dwivedi M. Intramural incision technique: a useful and safe procedure for obtaining ductal access during ERCP. Gastrointest Endosc. 2008;67(4):629–633.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kaffes AJ, Sriram PV, Rao GV, Santosh D, Reddy DN. Early institution of pre-cutting for difficult biliary cannulation: a prospective study comparing conventional vs. a modified technique. Gastrointest Endosc. 2005;62(5):669–674.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Laohavichitra K, Akaraviputh T, Methasate A, Leelakusolvong S, Kachintorn U. Comparison of early pre-cutting vs. standard technique for biliary cannulation in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: a personal experience. World J Gastroenterol. 2007;13(27):3734.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jian-hong Zhu
    • 1
  • Qiang Liu
    • 1
  • De-qing Zhang
    • 1
  • Huang Feng
    • 1
  • Wei-chang Chen
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of GastroenterologyThe First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow UniversitySuzhouChina

Personalised recommendations