4.3 Article

Wire-guided selective cannulation of the bile duct with a sphincterotome: a prospective randomized comparative study with the standard method

期刊

SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY
卷 46, 期 1, 页码 109-115

出版社

INFORMA HEALTHCARE
DOI: 10.3109/00365521.2010.521889

关键词

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography; post-ERCP pancreatitis; randomized controlled study; selective cannulation of the bile duct; wire-guided cannulation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective. Wire-guided cannulation (WGC) is expected to reduce the incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP). Our aim was to compare the incidence of PEP and the success rate of deep biliary cannulation using WGC or the standard cannulation method with contrast injection (STD). Material and methods. A total of 172 cases with an intact papilla were randomized into the STD group (n = 86) and the WGC group (n = 86). First a trainee endoscopist attempted the cannulation and if it was not successful, an expert endoscopist tried. When the cannulation was not successful within 10 min, the other method was conducted as a second attempt. The primary endpoint was the incidence of PEP and the secondary endpoint was the success rate of selective cannulation. Results. In successful cases, PEP occurred in 6.5% in the STD group and 3.0% in the WGC group in the first attempt. Overall rate of PEP was 6.0% (3, mild; 1, moderate and 1, severe) in the STD group and 2.3% (2, mild) in the WGC group, which were not significantly different. Selective cannulation rate in the first attempt was 73.8% in the STD group and 77.9% in the WGC group. After a crossover, the cannulation was successful in the second attempt in 36.4% and 42.1% and finally in 95.2% and 100% by the STD and WGC method, respectively. Conclusions. The incidence of PEP tended to be lower in the WGC method compared to the STD method. In addition, all cases of pancreatitis in the WGC group were mild. The success rate of cannulation was comparable between two groups.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据