Pancreatic duct guidewire placement for biliary cannulation as a risk factor for stone residue after endoscopic transpapillary stone removal

The impact of transpancreatic precut sphincterotomy on the quality of ERCP in a low-volume setting

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Although quality improvement is crucial for ERCP, a low practice volume can pose challenges to achieving high-quality bile duct cannulation. Transpancreatic precut sphincterotomy (TPS) has been proven effective for advanced cannulation. However, existing data mainly come from skilled endoscopists in large medical centers. The impact of TPS on ERCP quality in a lower-volume setting deserves investigation.

METHODS

Our hospital performs approximately 200 ERCPs annually, with 1 expert endoscopist performing approximately half of them and 3 nonexpert endoscopists sharing the remaining cases. TPS was started and became our predominant advanced cannulation technique in April 2016. We retrospectively reviewed ERCP cases 3 years before and after the introduction of TPS. The primary endpoints of the study were the differences in 2 ERCP quality indicators, the bile duct cannulation rate and the incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP).

RESULTS

A total of 701 ERCP cases with naïve papilla were analyzed, with 350 patients treated before the introduction of TPS and 351 patients treated afterward. The successful cannulation rate was significantly improved (before, 87.4%; after, 92.3%, P = .032), whereas the incidence of PEP decreased, but not significantly (before, 4.0%; after, 2.8%; P = .402). All endoscopists benefited from using TPS, with nonexperts demonstrating a significantly higher improvement in the cannulation rate (before, 85.5%; after, 93.1%; P = .019).

CONCLUSIONS

TPS can effectively enhance the quality of ERCP irrespective of practice volume.

Comparison of Efficacy and Safety of Laparoscopic Holmium laser Lithotripsy and Laparoscopic Bile Duct Exploration for Bile Duct Stones: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic holmium laser lithotripsy (LHLL) has been used to treat bile duct stones with unclear outcomes. A meta-analysis was conducted to investigate the LHLL and laparoscopic bile duct exploration (LBDE) efficacy and safety in treating bile duct stones.

METHODS

The correlational studies were searched databases, such as PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CNKI, Wanfang, and VIP, to identify eligible studies from inception to July 2022. The dichotomous and continuous outcomes were evaluated using odds ratio (OR), risk difference (RD) and weighted mean difference (WMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Stata 15.0 and Review Manager 5.3 software helped in data analyses.

RESULTS

A total of 23 studies with 1,890 patients, primarily from China, were included. The results indicated that operation time (WMD = - 26.94; 95% CI:(- 34.30, - 19.58); P < 0.00001), estimated blood loss (WMD = - 17.97; 95% CI: (- 22.94, - 13.00); P = 0.002), rate of residual stone (OR = 0.15, 95%CI: (0.10, 0.23); P < 0.00001), length of hospital stay (WMD = - 2.88; 95% CI:(- 3.80, - 1.96); P < 0.00001) and time to bowel function recovery (WMD = - 0.59; 95% CI: (- 0.76, - 0.41); P < 0.00001) had statistically significant differences between the two groups. In postoperative complications, biliary leakage (RD = -0.03; 95% CI: (- 0.05, -0.00); P = 0.02), infection (RD = - 0.06; 95% CI: (- 0.09,- 0.03); P < 0.00001) and Hepatic injury (RD = - 0.06; 95% CI: (- 0.11, - 0.01); P = 0.02) revealed statistically significant differences. However, no significant differences were observed in biliary damage (RD = - 0.03; 95% CI: (- 0.06, 0.00); P = 0.06) and hemobilia (RD = - 0.03; 95% CI: (- 0.06, 0.00); P = 0.08).

CONCLUSION

The current meta-analysis indicated that LHLL could be more effective and safer than LBDC. However, these results should be confirmed with a larger sample size and rigorously designed randomized controlled trials.

Controversies in ERCP: Technical aspects

The aim of the series of papers on controversies of biliopancreatic drainage procedures is to discuss pros and cons of the varying clinical practices and techniques in ERCP and EUS for drainage of biliary and pancreatic ducts. While the first part focuses on indications, clinical and imaging prerequisites prior to ERCP, sedation options, post-ERCP pancreatitis prophylaxis, and other related technical topics, the second part discusses specific procedural ERCP techniques including precut techniques and their timing as well as management algorithms. In addition, reviews on controversies in EUS-guided bile duct and pancreatic drainage procedures are under preparation.

Comparison of intraoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and laparoscopic common bile duct exploration combined with laparoscopic cholecystectomy for treating gallstones and common bile duct stones: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of laparoscopic cholecystectomy combined with intraoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (LC-IntraERCP) and laparoscopic cholecystectomy combined with laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LC-LCBDE) to determine which one-stage therapeutic strategy provides better outcomes for patients with gallstones and common bile duct stones.

METHODS

Cochrane Library, EMBASE, PubMed, and Web of Science databases were searched to identify eligible articles from the database inception to September 2020. The revised Cochrane risk of bias tools for randomized trials (RoB-2) and non-randomized interventions (ROBINS-I) was used to assess the quality of the included studies. The overall quality of evidence was assessed through the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) tool. The primary outcomes consisted of surgical success, retained stones, and overall postoperative complications, while secondary outcomes included postoperative bleeding, postoperative pancreatitis, postoperative bile leakage, conversion to laparotomy, and operative time.

RESULTS

Eight studies (four RCTs and four Non-RCTs with high quality) with 2948 patients were included. No significant difference was seen between the two groups regarding surgical success, overall postoperative complications, conversion to laparotomy, and operative time. The meta-analysis demonstrated that in the LC-IntraERCP group, the rate of retained stones (OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.28-0.91) and postoperative bile leakage were lower (OR 0.25, 95% CI 0.09-0.69), while in the LC-LCBDE group, postoperative bleeding (OR 5.24, 95% CI 1.65-16.65) and postoperative pancreatitis (OR 4.80, 95% CI 2.35-9.78) decreased.

CONCLUSIONS

LC-IntraERCP and LC-LCBDE exhibited similar efficacies when surgical success rate, overall postoperative complications, conversion to laparotomy, and operative time were compared. However, LC-IntraERCP is probably to be more effective in terms of lowering the rate of retained stones.

EUS-guided fine needle tattooing (EUS-FNT) for preoperative localization of small pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (p-NETs): a single-center experience

BACKGROUND

and study aims Pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (pNETs) can be difficult to detect intra-operatively. The aim of this paper is to evaluate the safety and efficacy of preoperative endoscopic ultrasound guided fine needle tattooing (EUS-FNT) to facilitate intra-operative detection of pNETs.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Sixteen patients with pNETs (8 insulinoma and 8 non-functional pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors) underwent EUS-FNT. The procedure was carried out using the conventional curvilinear EUS. Tattooing was performed by intralesional injection of 1-2 mL of Spot® ink (Spot®, GI Supply, Comp Hill, PA, US) using a standard 22 gauge EUS-FNA needle.

RESULTS

All identified pNETs could be tattooed in one session. The procedure was well tolerated in all patients without any complication. The time interval between tattooing and surgery was between 1 and 565 days (mean of 52 days). Nine patients underwent open and seven laparoscopic surgery. The tattooed lesions could be recognized in all but one patient. In one patient, a small hematoma secondary to the EUS-FNT was observed. Pathological examination of the resection specimen showed local R0 resection in all cases, and no interference with the specimen evaluation was encountered.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that EUS-guided FNT is a safe and useful method to mark preoperatively small (≤ 2 cm) pNETs.