暂无摘要。

暂无摘要。

暂无摘要。

Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is the primary therapeutic procedure for pancreaticobiliary disorders, and studies highlighted the impact of papilla anatomy on its efficacy and safety. Our objective was to quantify the influence of papilla morphology on ERCP outcomes. We systematically searched three medical databases in September 2022, focusing on studies detailing the cannulation process or the rate of adverse events in the context of papilla morphology. The Haraldsson classification served as the primary system for papilla morphology, and a pooled event rate with a 95% confidence interval was calculated as the effect size measure. Out of 17 eligible studies, 14 were included in the quantitative synthesis. In studies using the Haraldsson classification, the rate of difficult cannulation was the lowest in type I papilla (26%), while the highest one was observed in the case of type IV papilla (41%). For post-ERCP pancreatitis, the event rate was the highest in type II papilla (11%) and the lowest in type I and III papilla (6-6%). No significant difference was observed in the cannulation failure and post-ERCP bleeding event rates between the papilla types. In conclusion, certain papilla morphologies are associated with a higher rate of difficult cannulation and post-ERCP pancreatitis.

The sphincter of Oddi comprises a muscular complex encircling the distal part of the common bile duct and the pancreatic duct regulating the outflow from these ducts. Sphincter of Oddi dysfunction refers to the abnormal opening and closing of the muscular valve, which impairs the circulation of bile and pancreatic juices.
To evaluate the benefits and harms of any type of endoscopic sphincterotomy compared with a placebo drug, sham operation, or any pharmaceutical treatment, administered orally or endoscopically, alone or in combination, or a different type of endoscopic sphincterotomy in adults with biliary sphincter of Oddi dysfunction.
We used extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 16 May 2023.
We included randomised clinical trials assessing any type of endoscopic sphincterotomy versus placebo drug, sham operation, or any pharmaceutical treatment, alone or in combination, or a different type of endoscopic sphincterotomy in adults diagnosed with sphincter of Oddi dysfunction, irrespective of year, language of publication, format, or outcomes reported.
We used standard Cochrane methods and Review Manager to prepare the review. Our primary outcomes were: proportion of participants without successful treatment; proportion of participants with one or more serious adverse events; and health-related quality of life. Our secondary outcomes were: all-cause mortality; proportion of participants with one or more non-serious adverse events; length of hospital stay; and proportion of participants without improvement in liver function tests. We used the outcome data at the longest follow-up and the random-effects model for our primary analyses. We assessed the risk of bias of the included trials using RoB 2 and the certainty of evidence using GRADE. We planned to present the results of time-to-event outcomes as hazard ratios (HR). We presented dichotomous outcomes as risk ratios (RR) and continuous outcomes as mean difference (MD) with their 95% confidence intervals (CI).
We included four randomised clinical trials, including 433 participants. Trials were published between 1989 and 2015. The trial participants had sphincter of Oddi dysfunction. Two trials were conducted in the USA, one in Australia, and one in Japan. One was a multicentre trial conducted in seven US centres, and the remaining three were single-centre trials. One trial used a two-stage randomisation, resulting in two comparisons. The number of participants in the four trials ranged from 47 to 214 (median 86), with a median age of 45 years, and the mean proportion of males was 49%. The follow-up duration ranged from one year to four years after the end of treatment. All trials assessed one or more outcomes of interest to our review. The trials provided data for the comparisons and outcomes below, in conformity with our review protocol. The certainty of evidence for all the outcomes was very low. Endoscopic sphincterotomy versus sham Endoscopic sphincterotomy versus sham may have little to no effect on treatment success (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.66; 3 trials, 340 participants; follow-up range 1 to 4 years); serious adverse events (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.46; 1 trial, 214 participants; follow-up 1 year), health-related quality of life (Physical scale) (MD -1.00, 95% CI -3.84 to 1.84; 1 trial, 214 participants; follow-up 1 year), health-related quality of life (Mental scale) (MD -1.00, 95% CI -4.16 to 2.16; 1 trial, 214 participants; follow-up 1 year), and no improvement in liver function test (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.35 to 2.26; 1 trial, 47 participants; follow-up 1 year), but the evidence is very uncertain. Endoscopic sphincterotomy versus endoscopic papillary balloon dilation Endoscopic sphincterotomy versus endoscopic papillary balloon dilationmay have little to no effect on serious adverse events (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.04 to 3.15; 1 trial, 91 participants; follow-up 1 year), but the evidence is very uncertain. Endoscopic sphincterotomy versus dual endoscopic sphincterotomy Endoscopic sphincterotomy versus dual endoscopic sphincterotomy may have little to no effect on treatment success (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.32 to 1.31; 1 trial, 99 participants; follow-up 1 year), but the evidence is very uncertain. Funding One trial did not provide any information on sponsorship; one trial was funded by a foundation (the National Institutes of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, NIDDK), and two trials seemed to be funded by the local health institutes or universities where the investigators worked. We did not identify any ongoing randomised clinical trials.
Based on very low-certainty evidence from the trials included in this review, we do not know if endoscopic sphincterotomy versus sham or versus dual endoscopic sphincterotomy increases, reduces, or makes no difference to the number of people with treatment success; if endoscopic sphincterotomy versus sham or versus endoscopic papillary balloon dilation increases, reduces, or makes no difference to serious adverse events; or if endoscopic sphincterotomy versus sham improves, worsens, or makes no difference to health-related quality of life and liver function tests in adults with biliary sphincter of Oddi dysfunction. Evidence on the effect of endoscopic sphincterotomy compared with sham, endoscopic papillary balloon dilation,or dual endoscopic sphincterotomyon all-cause mortality, non-serious adverse events, and length of hospital stay is lacking. We found no trials comparing endoscopic sphincterotomy versus a placebo drug or versus any other pharmaceutical treatment, alone or in combination. All four trials were underpowered and lacked trial data on clinically important outcomes. We lack randomised clinical trials assessing clinically and patient-relevant outcomes to demonstrate the effects of endoscopic sphincterotomy in adults with biliary sphincter of Oddi dysfunction.

暂无摘要。

暂无摘要。

Limited endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) combined with endoscopic papillary balloon dilation (EPBD) is widely used. However, the optimal duration of small balloon dilation in choledocholithiasis remains controversial. We aimed to determine the optimal duration for 10 mm diameter balloon dilation after limited EST in choledocholithiasis. In this randomized controlled clinical trial, 320 patients were randomly assigned to receive small balloon dilation (10 mm in diameter) for 1 min (n = 160) or 3 min (n = 160) after deep bile duct cannulation. No significant difference in success rate of stone extraction between the two groups was observed. The incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) was higher in the 1 min group (10.6%) than in the 3 min group (4.4%) (P = 0.034). The logistic regression analysis showed that guidewire into the pancreatic duct, cannulation time > 5 min and 1 min balloon dilation were independent risk factors for PEP. There were no significant differences in other post-ERCP adverse events such as acute cholangitis, bleeding, perforation, etc. between the two groups. In conclusion, 3 min in duration was determined to be the optimal dilation condition for the removal of common bile duct stones.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) are essential skills for performing endoscopic cholangiopancreatic procedures. However, these procedures have a high incidence of adverse events, and current training predominantly relies on patient-based approaches. Herein, we aimed to develop an ERCP/EST simulator model to address the need for safer training alternatives, especially for learners with limited ERCP experience.
METHODS: The model was designed to facilitate the use of actual endoscopic devices, supporting learning objectives that align with the components of the validated Bethesda ERCP Skill Assessment Tool (BESAT). BESAT focuses on skills, such as papillary alignment, maintenance of duodenoscope position, gentle and efficient cannulation, controlled sphincterotomy in the correct trajectory, and guidewire manipulation. Thirty gastroenterology trainees used the simulator between May 2022 and March 2023, and their satisfaction was assessed using a visual analog scale (VAS) and pre- and post-training questionnaires.
RESULTS: The novel simulator model comprised a disposable duodenal papillary section, suitable for incision with an electrosurgical knife, alongside washable upper gastrointestinal tract and bile duct sections for repeated use. The duodenal papillary section enabled reproduction of a realistic endoscope position and the adverse bleeding events due to improper incisions. The bile duct section allowed for the reproduction of fluoroscopic-like images, enabling learners to practice guidewire guidance and insertion of other devices. Following training, the median VAS score reflecting the expectation for model learning significantly increased from 69.5 (interquartile range [IQR]: 55.5-76.5) to 85.5 (IQR: 78.0-92.0) (p < 0.01). All participants expressed a desire for repeated simulator training sessions.
CONCLUSIONS: This innovative simulator could serve as a practical educational tool, particularly beneficial for novices in ERCP. It could facilitate hands-on practice with actual devices, enhancing procedural fluency and understanding of precise incisions to minimize the risk of bleeding complications during EST.

OBJECTIVE: Cannulation of the major papilla is the most challenging part of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) for which physician-controlled wire-guided cannulation (PCWGC) and assistant-controlled wire-guided cannulation (ACWGC) are used as the cannulation techniques. PCWGC can reportedly save up to about 30% of the labor cost by reducing the number of assistants. This study aims to compare the safety and efficacy of PCWGC and ACWGC.
METHODS: Of the 2151 patients aged >20 years (4193 cases) who underwent ERCP at Yonsei University Medical Center between January 2015 and December 2016, 989 were included in this study.
RESULTS: Among efficacy outcomes, cannulation success rate, rate of precut sphincterotomy (PCWGC vs. ACWGC: 21.3% vs. 25.9%), bile duct cannulation time (PCWGC vs. ACWGC: median 3.0 minutes vs. 3.6 minutes), and total procedure time (PCWGC vs. ACWGC: median 13.6 minutes vs. 13.1 minutes) were not significantly different. Among safety outcomes, lower rates of post-ERCP pancreatitis were observed with PCWGC than with ACWGC (PCWGC vs. ACWGC: 5.8% vs. 8.8%, p=0.128). Among other post-ERCP adverse events (bleeding, perforation, and cholangitis), the difference was not significant between the groups. Radiation exposure (total dose area product, PCWGC vs. ACWGC: median 1979.9 µGym² vs. 2062.0 µGym², p=0.194) and ERCP cost excluding labor cost (PCWGC vs. ACWGC: $1576 vs. $1547, p=0.606) were not significantly different.
CONCLUSIONS: Requiring less assistants, PCWGC showed comparable efficacy and safety to ACWGC. PCWGC can be considered as an alternative option, especially in facilities lacking manpower and resources.