Digestive Diseases and Sciences

, Volume 60, Issue 6, pp 1787–1792 | Cite as

Anatomical Location of Pathology Is Predictive of Prolonged Fluoroscopy Time During ERCP: A Multicenter American Study

  • Amer A. Alkhatib
  • Ala A. Abdel Jalil
  • Douglas O. Faigel
  • Rahul Pannala
  • Michael Crowell
  • M. E. Harrison
Original Article



Different factors have been associated with prolonged fluoroscopy time (FT) during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP).


We hypothesize that FT depends on both the anatomical location of the pathology managed during ERCP and the complexity of the ERCP.


Three centers participated in a retrospective multi-center cohort study. Data on patient demographics, ERCP complexity, and the location of pathology were collected. The relationships between FT and the location of pathology, ERCP complexity, patient demographics, and ERCP maneuvers, respectively, were analyzed. Prolonged FT was defined as a FT > 10 min.


A total of 442 cases underwent ERCP in three different centers (301 cases, 76 cases, and 65 cases in centers A, B, and C, respectively) by six endoscopists. The median FT for all cases was 282 (range 8–3,516) s. Mean FT increased progressively according to anatomical location in the order extrahepatic cases {n = 298; mean FT 292 [95 % confidence interval (CI) 263–322] s}, pancreatic cases [n = 27; mean FT 359 (95 % CI 200–517) s], and intrahepatic cases [n = 117; mean FT 736 s (95 % CI 635–836) s]. Mean FT increased progressively with the complexity scale, with mean FT for Grade I, 218 (95 % CI 138–299) s; Grade II, 295 (95 % 261–329) s; Grade III, 586 (95 % CI 508–663) s; Grade IV, 636 (95 % CI 437–834) s. Multivariable analysis confirmed that prolonged FT was independently associated with anatomical location of the targeted pathology during ERCP—but not with ERCP complexity and endoscopy center.


Prolonged FT during ERCP is associated most strongly with intrahepatic cases. FT can be used most effectively as a quality measure if it is stratified according to presence or absence of intrahepatic cases.


ERCP Fluoroscopy time Bile Biliary Pancreatic Fluoroscopy Radiation 


Conflict of interest



  1. 1.
    Boix J, Lorenzo-Zuniga V. Radiation dose to patients during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. World J Gastrointest Endosc. 2011;3:140.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Tsalafoutas IA, Paraskeva KD, Yakoumakis EN, et al. Radiation doses to patients from endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography examinations and image quality considerations. Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2003;106:241–246.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Campbell N, Sparrow K, Fortier M, Ponich T. Practical radiation safety and protection for the endoscopist during ERCP. Gastrointest Endosc. 2002;55:552–557.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Romagnuolo J, Cotton PB. Recording ERCP fluoroscopy metrics using a multinational quality network: establishing benchmarks and examining time-related improvements. Am J Gastroenterol. 2013;108:1224–1230.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kim E, McLoughlin M, Lam EC, et al. Prospective analysis of fluoroscopy duration during ERCP: critical determinants. Gastrointest Endosc. 2010;72:50–57.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Heyd RL, Kopecky KK, Sherman S, Lehman GA, Stockberger SM. Radiation exposure to patients and personnel during interventional ERCP at a teaching institution. Gastrointest Endosc. 1996;44:287–292.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Naidu LS, Singhal S, Preece DE, Vohrah A, Loft DE. Radiation exposure to personnel performing endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Postgrad Med J. 2005;81:660–662.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kim E, McLoughlin M, Lam EC, et al. Retrospective analysis of radiation exposure during endoscopic retrograde cholagiopancreatography: critical determinants. Can J Gastroenterol. 2011;25:555–559.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Uradomo LT, Goldberg EM, Darwin PE. Time-limited fluoroscopy to reduce radiation exposure during ERCP: a prospective randomized trial. Gastrointest Endosc. 2007;66:84–89.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Oztas E, Parlak E, Kucukay F, et al. The impact of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography education on radiation exposure to experienced endoscopist: ‘trainee effect’. Dig Dis Sci. 2012;57:1134–1143.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Uradomo LT, Lustberg ME, Darwin PE. Effect of physician training on fluoroscopy time during ERCP. Dig Dis Sci. 2006;51:909–914.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cotton PB, Eisen G, Romagnuolo J, et al. Grading the complexity of endoscopic procedures: results of an ASGE working party. Gastrointest Endosc. 2011;73:868–874.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jorgensen JE, Rubenstein JH, Goodsitt MM, Elta GH. Radiation doses to ERCP patients are significantly lower with experienced endoscopists. Gastrointest Endosc. 2010;72:58–65.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Adams AS, Soumerai SB, Lomas J, Ross-Degnan D. Evidence of self-report bias in assessing adherence to guidelines. Int J Qual Health Care. 1999;11:187–192.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Amer A. Alkhatib
    • 1
  • Ala A. Abdel Jalil
    • 2
  • Douglas O. Faigel
    • 3
  • Rahul Pannala
    • 3
  • Michael Crowell
    • 3
  • M. E. Harrison
    • 3
  1. 1.Division of GastroenterologyCancer Treatment Centers of AmericaTulsaUSA
  2. 2.Department of Internal Medicine, McLeod Regional Medical CenterEdward Via College of Osteopathic MedicineFlorenceUSA
  3. 3.Division of GastroenterologyMayo ClinicScottsdaleUSA

Personalised recommendations