RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Prospective Evaluation of Transpancreatic Sphincterotomy Comparing to Needle-knife Precut in Difficult Biliary Cannulation: Short-and Long-term Outcomes
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2020.03.10.20032797
DO 10.1101/2020.03.10.20032797
A1 Fatema Tabak
A1 Guo-Zhong Ji
A1 Lin Miao
YR 2020
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/03/12/2020.03.10.20032797.abstract
AB Background/Aims Transpancreatic sphincterotomy (TPS) can be an alternative approach of biliary access in difficult cannulation cases. We aimed to prospectively evaluate the efficacy and safety of TPS compared to needle-knife precut (NKP), considering the late consequences of both techniques.Methods A total of 122 enrolled patients have been divided into three groups based on the applied secondary cannulation techniques. Selective cannulation success, ERCP procedure findings, and immediate adverse events were compared between groups. We investigated the long-term outcomes during six-month after the procedure.Results Successful selective cannulation was achieved in 92.9% with TPS similarly to other groups. The mean procedure time was shorter in the TPS group without significant difference. Using TPS did not affect the rate of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) with less frequent post-ERCP bleeding and perforation after TPS compared to NKP, without significant difference. Patients who received TPS, NKP, or both had no symptoms related to papillary stenosis or chronic pancreatitis during the follow-up period.Conclusions Using TPS was useful to achieve success cannulation in difficult cases with an acceptable PEP rate. Furthermore, it was associated with reducing bleeding and perforation rates comparing with NKP and no differences related to the long term consequences within the follow-up period.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Clinical TrialNCT03771547Funding StatementThis research received no external funding.Author DeclarationsAll relevant ethical guidelines have been followed; any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained and details of the IRB/oversight body are included in the manuscript.YesAll necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesThe datasets used and analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.