错误:搜索内容不能为空,请输入英文关键词
错误:关键词超出字数限制,请精简
高级检索

Precut Over a Pancreatic Duct Stent Versus Transpancreatic Precut Sphincterotomy for Difficult Biliary Cannulation in Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography: A Retrospective Cohort Study

  • Yang Qi,
  • Qianyi Li,
  • Wenfei Yao,
  • Yuquan Wu,
  • Nengping Li

摘要

Background

Precut over a pancreatic duct stent (PPDS) and transpancreatic precut sphincterotomy (TPS) with immediate pancreatic duct stent placement are techniques employed to promote biliary access during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in cases of challenging biliary cannulation. However, limited data are available to compare the efficacy of these two pancreatic stent-assisted precut sphincterotomy techniques.

Aims

The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of PPDS versus TPS.

Methods

A retrospective analysis was performed on the clinical data of consecutive patients who underwent ERCP between April 1, 2019 and May 31, 2023. According to the selected cannulation approaches, patients were assigned to two groups. In the PPDS group, a pancreatic duct stent was initially placed, followed by needle-knife precut over the stent. In the TPS group, transpancreatic precut sphincterotomy was initially performed, followed by immediate pancreatic stent placement. The success rate of biliary cannulation and the incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) between the two groups were analysed.

Results

Among 864 patients who underwent ERCP, 46 patients were equally enrolled in the two groups. Selective bile duct cannulation was successfully achieved in 42 out of 46 (91.3%) cases using the PPDS and in 32 out of 46 (69.6%) cases using TPS technique alone, indicating significantly higher success rate of bile duct cannulation with PPDS compared to TPS (91.3% vs. 69.6%, P = 0.009). The overall success rates for bile duct cannulation were 93.5% and 97.8% in the PPDS and TPS groups, respectively, with no significant difference identified (P = 0.307). PEP occurred in 0 and 4 (8.7%) cases in the PPDS and TPS groups, respectively, with no significant difference between the two groups (8.7% vs. 0%, P = 0.117). There were no cases of bleeding or perforation in either group.

Conclusions

Both PPDS and TPS followed by immediate pancreatic duct stent placement are viable options. TPS stands out for its simplicity and cost-effectiveness, while PPDS is more appropriate for patients who are at a high-risk of developing PEP.