Abstract
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 Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Clinical Trial
NCT03771547
Funding Statement
This research received no external funding.
Author Declarations
All 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.
Yes
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I 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).
Yes
I 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.
Yes
Data Availability
The datasets used and analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.