Transpancreatic Sphincterotomy After Double Guidewire Technique Was Noninferior to Primary Transpancreatic Sphincterotomy in Difficult Biliary Cannulation
© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature..
BACKGROUND: When unintentional pancreatic duct access occurs during difficult biliary cannulation, the double guidewire (DGW) or transpancreatic sphincterotomy (TPS) may be utilized. DGW can be easily switched to TPS due to the existing guidewire in the pancreatic duct. However, the efficacy of TPS after DGW, named sequential DGW-TPS technique, versus primary TPS has not been assessed.
AIMS: Our aim was to compare the benefits and adverse events of sequential DGW-TPS technique and primary TPS.
METHODS: We performed a comparative retrospective cohort study that enrolled a total of 117 patients with native papillae. The patients were divided into one of 2 groups according to the primary bile duct access technique (sequential DGW-TPS or primary TPS), both with pancreatic stenting.
RESULTS: Between November 2017 and May 2023, a total of 84 patients were grouped into sequential DGW-TPS and 33 into primary TPS. The overall post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) rate was 4.3% in the entire cohort, with no statistical differences were observed between the groups in terms of PEP rates (P = 0.927), PEP severity (P = 1.000), first biliary cannulation success (P = 0.621), overall cannulation success (P = 1.000), hyperamylasemia incidence (P = 0.241), elevated amylase levels (P = 0.881), and postoperative hospital stay (P = 0.185). Furthermore, these results remained consistent in multivariable regression analysis.
CONCLUSIONS: The sequential DGW-TPS technique showed a comparable safety and biliary cannulation success rate to primary TPS in difficult biliary cannulation. Given the potential long-term complications associated with TPS, DGW should be first if inadvertent pancreatic access occurs, with TPS serving as second only if DGW fails.
| Medienart: |
E-Artikel |
|---|
| Erscheinungsjahr: |
2024 |
|---|---|
| Erschienen: |
2024 |
| Enthalten in: |
Zur Gesamtaufnahme - year:2024 |
|---|---|
| Enthalten in: |
Digestive diseases and sciences - (2024) vom: 09. Apr. |
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
|---|
| Beteiligte Personen: |
Wang, Shaofei [VerfasserIn] |
|---|
| Links: |
|---|
| Themen: |
Adverse effects |
|---|
| Anmerkungen: |
Date Revised 09.04.2024 published: Print-Electronic Citation Status Publisher |
|---|
| doi: |
10.1007/s10620-024-08319-7 |
|---|
| funding: |
|
|---|---|
| Förderinstitution / Projekttitel: |
|
| PPN (Katalog-ID): |
NLM37083769X |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000naa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | NLM37083769X | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20240410233312.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 240410s2024 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1007/s10620-024-08319-7 |2 doi | |
| 028 | 5 | 2 | |a pubmed24n1371.xml |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)NLM37083769X | ||
| 035 | |a (NLM)38594433 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Wang, Shaofei |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Transpancreatic Sphincterotomy After Double Guidewire Technique Was Noninferior to Primary Transpancreatic Sphincterotomy in Difficult Biliary Cannulation |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2024 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a ƒaComputermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a ƒa Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 500 | |a Date Revised 09.04.2024 | ||
| 500 | |a published: Print-Electronic | ||
| 500 | |a Citation Status Publisher | ||
| 520 | |a © 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature. | ||
| 520 | |a BACKGROUND: When unintentional pancreatic duct access occurs during difficult biliary cannulation, the double guidewire (DGW) or transpancreatic sphincterotomy (TPS) may be utilized. DGW can be easily switched to TPS due to the existing guidewire in the pancreatic duct. However, the efficacy of TPS after DGW, named sequential DGW-TPS technique, versus primary TPS has not been assessed | ||
| 520 | |a AIMS: Our aim was to compare the benefits and adverse events of sequential DGW-TPS technique and primary TPS | ||
| 520 | |a METHODS: We performed a comparative retrospective cohort study that enrolled a total of 117 patients with native papillae. The patients were divided into one of 2 groups according to the primary bile duct access technique (sequential DGW-TPS or primary TPS), both with pancreatic stenting | ||
| 520 | |a RESULTS: Between November 2017 and May 2023, a total of 84 patients were grouped into sequential DGW-TPS and 33 into primary TPS. The overall post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) rate was 4.3% in the entire cohort, with no statistical differences were observed between the groups in terms of PEP rates (P = 0.927), PEP severity (P = 1.000), first biliary cannulation success (P = 0.621), overall cannulation success (P = 1.000), hyperamylasemia incidence (P = 0.241), elevated amylase levels (P = 0.881), and postoperative hospital stay (P = 0.185). Furthermore, these results remained consistent in multivariable regression analysis | ||
| 520 | |a CONCLUSIONS: The sequential DGW-TPS technique showed a comparable safety and biliary cannulation success rate to primary TPS in difficult biliary cannulation. Given the potential long-term complications associated with TPS, DGW should be first if inadvertent pancreatic access occurs, with TPS serving as second only if DGW fails | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a Journal Article | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Adverse effects | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Catheterization | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Cholangiopancreatography | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Endoscopic | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Endoscopic Rretrograde | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Humans | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Retrospective Studies | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Sphincterotomy | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Bai, Bingqing |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Liu, Sisi |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Fang, Yuanyuan |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Zhang, Chenyu |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Chen, Xinwen |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Huang, Qiming |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Wang, Jiren |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Hong, Jianglong |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Li, Yang |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Xu, Zhangwei |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Liu, Xiaochang |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Bao, Junjun |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Mei, Qiao |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Hong, Rutao |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t Digestive diseases and sciences |d 1989 |g (2024) vom: 09. Apr. |w (DE-627)NLM000356492 |x 1573-2568 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g year:2024 |g day:09 |g month:04 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10620-024-08319-7 |3 Volltext |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_NLM | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |j 2024 |b 09 |c 04 | ||