Standard Cannulation versus Fistulotomy for Biliary Access in Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography: Should We Expect the Same Success when Treating Choledocholithiasis?
Main Author: | |
---|---|
Publication Date: | 2024 |
Other Authors: | , , , , , |
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 |