4.4 Article

Success and safety of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in children

Journal

JOURNAL OF PEDIATRIC SURGERY
Volume 52, Issue 7, Pages 1148-1151

Publisher

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2017.01.051

Keywords

Cholangiopancreatography; Endoscopic retrograde; Sphincterotomy; Endoscopic; Outcomes research; Gallstones

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: Despite its diagnostic and therapeutic utility, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is underutilized in children. Methods: Patients younger than 18 years undergoing ERCP from 2000 to 2014 at a children's hospital were identified. Patient characteristics and outcomes were evaluated. Results: Overall, 215 ERCPs (78% therapeutic) were performed in 184 patients. Our cohort was 67% female, with a median age (IQR) of 14 (8) years. Common indications were choledocholithiasis, pancreatitis, sclerosing cholangitis, and postoperative complication. ERCP was performed with an adult duodenoscope in 96% of cases and with a pediatric duodenoscope in the remainder. Patients requiring a pediatric scope ranged in weight from 4.3 to 22.8 kg, with ages from 2 months to 6 years. Cannulation was successful in 97% of cases. Findings included bile duct (BD) stones, BD dilatation, sclerosing cholangitis, BD stricture, pancreatic duct (PD) disruption, choledochal cyst, pancreas divisum, and BD leak. The most common therapeutic techniques were sphincterotomy, stone extraction, and stent. Complication rate was overall 10% with no deaths. On multivariate analysis, PD cannulation was associated with pancreatitis (OR 3.48), while age 4 years (10.7), male gender (12.8), and precut sphincterotomy (31.3) were associated with hemorrhage (all p < 0.05). Conclusion: ERCP can be performed successfully and safely in children with complication rates comparable to those in adults. The type of cannulation and patient age are independent risk factors for complications. (C) 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available