Export Ready — 

Standard Cannulation versus Fistulotomy for Biliary Access in Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography: Should We Expect the Same Success when Treating Choledocholithiasis?

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Moreira,Marta
Publication Date: 2024
Other Authors: Tarrio,Isabel, Andrade,Alda João, Araújo,Tarcísio, Fernandes,João Sousa Silva, Canena,Jorge, Lopes,Luís
Format: Article
Language: eng
Source: Repositórios Científicos de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (RCAAP)
Download full: http://scielo.pt/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2341-45452024000600025
Summary: Abstract Introduction: To access the common bile duct in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), needle-knife fistulotomy (NKF) can be associated with a shorter sphincterotomy compared to standard cannulation. We aimed to compare the success and safety of NKF versus standard cannulation in the treatment of choledocholithiasis. Methods: A cohort of 379 naïve patients with choledocholithiasis who underwent ERCP between 2005 and 2022 was retrospectively analyzed. The patients were divided into two groups: group A (179 consecutive patients) underwent NKF, while group B (180 patients) received standard biliary access and were matched for stone characteristics and ERCP year. Results: Stone removal success rate for group A was significantly lower than that for group B in the initial ERCP (82.0% vs. 92.1%, p = 0.003). In group A, success rates for stone removal were 90.2%, 80%, and 29.4% for stone sizes <10 mm, 10 mm-15 mm, and >15 mm, respectively (p < 0.001). In contrast, group B showed success rates of 99.2%, 81.5%, and 71.4% for the same stone size categories (p < 0.001). Pancreatitis occurred in 3.7% of group A and 5.8% of group B patients (p = 0.340). Regression analysis revealed that NKF cannulation, stone size (>10 mm), and having 4 or more stones were associated with lower stone removal success compared to standard cannulation in the initial ERCP (OR 0.34, p = 0.015; stone size 10-15 mm: OR 0.20, p < 0.001; stone size >15 mm: OR 0.05, p < 0.001; 4 or more stones: OR 0.4, p = 0.040). Conclusions: The removal of common bile duct stones after NKF access, although safe and effective, is less successful than after a standard can-nulation, especially at the baseline ERCP.
id RCAP_a2d7b21966be09d5328a3647131b3e65
oai_identifier_str oai:scielo:S2341-45452024000600025
network_acronym_str RCAP
network_name_str Repositórios Científicos de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (RCAAP)
repository_id_str https://opendoar.ac.uk/repository/7160
spelling Standard Cannulation versus Fistulotomy for Biliary Access in Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography: Should We Expect the Same Success when Treating Choledocholithiasis?CholedocholithiasisEndoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatographyCatheterizationNeedle-knife fistulotomyPrecut techniquesAbstract Introduction: To access the common bile duct in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), needle-knife fistulotomy (NKF) can be associated with a shorter sphincterotomy compared to standard cannulation. We aimed to compare the success and safety of NKF versus standard cannulation in the treatment of choledocholithiasis. Methods: A cohort of 379 naïve patients with choledocholithiasis who underwent ERCP between 2005 and 2022 was retrospectively analyzed. The patients were divided into two groups: group A (179 consecutive patients) underwent NKF, while group B (180 patients) received standard biliary access and were matched for stone characteristics and ERCP year. Results: Stone removal success rate for group A was significantly lower than that for group B in the initial ERCP (82.0% vs. 92.1%, p = 0.003). In group A, success rates for stone removal were 90.2%, 80%, and 29.4% for stone sizes <10 mm, 10 mm-15 mm, and >15 mm, respectively (p < 0.001). In contrast, group B showed success rates of 99.2%, 81.5%, and 71.4% for the same stone size categories (p < 0.001). Pancreatitis occurred in 3.7% of group A and 5.8% of group B patients (p = 0.340). Regression analysis revealed that NKF cannulation, stone size (>10 mm), and having 4 or more stones were associated with lower stone removal success compared to standard cannulation in the initial ERCP (OR 0.34, p = 0.015; stone size 10-15 mm: OR 0.20, p < 0.001; stone size >15 mm: OR 0.05, p < 0.001; 4 or more stones: OR 0.4, p = 0.040). Conclusions: The removal of common bile duct stones after NKF access, although safe and effective, is less successful than after a standard can-nulation, especially at the baseline ERCP.Sociedade Portuguesa de Gastrenterologia2024-12-01info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/articletext/htmlhttp://scielo.pt/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2341-45452024000600025GE-Portuguese Journal of Gastroenterology v.31 n.6 2024reponame:Repositórios Científicos de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (RCAAP)instname:FCCN, serviços digitais da FCT – Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologiainstacron:RCAAPenghttp://scielo.pt/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2341-45452024000600025Moreira,MartaTarrio,IsabelAndrade,Alda JoãoAraújo,TarcísioFernandes,João Sousa SilvaCanena,JorgeLopes,Luísinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess2025-02-06T23:00:44Zoai:scielo:S2341-45452024000600025Portal AgregadorONGhttps://www.rcaap.pt/oai/openaireinfo@rcaap.ptopendoar:https://opendoar.ac.uk/repository/71602025-05-28T19:46:31.999503Repositórios Científicos de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (RCAAP) - FCCN, serviços digitais da FCT – Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologiafalse
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Standard Cannulation versus Fistulotomy for Biliary Access in Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography: Should We Expect the Same Success when Treating Choledocholithiasis?
title Standard Cannulation versus Fistulotomy for Biliary Access in Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography: Should We Expect the Same Success when Treating Choledocholithiasis?
spellingShingle Standard Cannulation versus Fistulotomy for Biliary Access in Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography: Should We Expect the Same Success when Treating Choledocholithiasis?
Moreira,Marta
Choledocholithiasis
Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography
Catheterization
Needle-knife fistulotomy
Precut techniques
title_short Standard Cannulation versus Fistulotomy for Biliary Access in Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography: Should We Expect the Same Success when Treating Choledocholithiasis?
title_full Standard Cannulation versus Fistulotomy for Biliary Access in Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography: Should We Expect the Same Success when Treating Choledocholithiasis?
title_fullStr Standard Cannulation versus Fistulotomy for Biliary Access in Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography: Should We Expect the Same Success when Treating Choledocholithiasis?
title_full_unstemmed Standard Cannulation versus Fistulotomy for Biliary Access in Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography: Should We Expect the Same Success when Treating Choledocholithiasis?
title_sort Standard Cannulation versus Fistulotomy for Biliary Access in Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography: Should We Expect the Same Success when Treating Choledocholithiasis?
author Moreira,Marta
author_facet Moreira,Marta
Tarrio,Isabel
Andrade,Alda João
Araújo,Tarcísio
Fernandes,João Sousa Silva
Canena,Jorge
Lopes,Luís
author_role author
author2 Tarrio,Isabel
Andrade,Alda João
Araújo,Tarcísio
Fernandes,João Sousa Silva
Canena,Jorge
Lopes,Luís
author2_role author
author
author
author
author
author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Moreira,Marta
Tarrio,Isabel
Andrade,Alda João
Araújo,Tarcísio
Fernandes,João Sousa Silva
Canena,Jorge
Lopes,Luís
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Choledocholithiasis
Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography
Catheterization
Needle-knife fistulotomy
Precut techniques
topic Choledocholithiasis
Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography
Catheterization
Needle-knife fistulotomy
Precut techniques
description Abstract Introduction: To access the common bile duct in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), needle-knife fistulotomy (NKF) can be associated with a shorter sphincterotomy compared to standard cannulation. We aimed to compare the success and safety of NKF versus standard cannulation in the treatment of choledocholithiasis. Methods: A cohort of 379 naïve patients with choledocholithiasis who underwent ERCP between 2005 and 2022 was retrospectively analyzed. The patients were divided into two groups: group A (179 consecutive patients) underwent NKF, while group B (180 patients) received standard biliary access and were matched for stone characteristics and ERCP year. Results: Stone removal success rate for group A was significantly lower than that for group B in the initial ERCP (82.0% vs. 92.1%, p = 0.003). In group A, success rates for stone removal were 90.2%, 80%, and 29.4% for stone sizes <10 mm, 10 mm-15 mm, and >15 mm, respectively (p < 0.001). In contrast, group B showed success rates of 99.2%, 81.5%, and 71.4% for the same stone size categories (p < 0.001). Pancreatitis occurred in 3.7% of group A and 5.8% of group B patients (p = 0.340). Regression analysis revealed that NKF cannulation, stone size (>10 mm), and having 4 or more stones were associated with lower stone removal success compared to standard cannulation in the initial ERCP (OR 0.34, p = 0.015; stone size 10-15 mm: OR 0.20, p < 0.001; stone size >15 mm: OR 0.05, p < 0.001; 4 or more stones: OR 0.4, p = 0.040). Conclusions: The removal of common bile duct stones after NKF access, although safe and effective, is less successful than after a standard can-nulation, especially at the baseline ERCP.
publishDate 2024
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2024-12-01
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv http://scielo.pt/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2341-45452024000600025
url http://scielo.pt/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2341-45452024000600025
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv http://scielo.pt/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2341-45452024000600025
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv text/html
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Sociedade Portuguesa de Gastrenterologia
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Sociedade Portuguesa de Gastrenterologia
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv GE-Portuguese Journal of Gastroenterology v.31 n.6 2024
reponame:Repositórios Científicos de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (RCAAP)
instname:FCCN, serviços digitais da FCT – Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia
instacron:RCAAP
instname_str FCCN, serviços digitais da FCT – Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia
instacron_str RCAAP
institution RCAAP
reponame_str Repositórios Científicos de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (RCAAP)
collection Repositórios Científicos de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (RCAAP)
repository.name.fl_str_mv Repositórios Científicos de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (RCAAP) - FCCN, serviços digitais da FCT – Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia
repository.mail.fl_str_mv info@rcaap.pt
_version_ 1833598317061210112