de Weerth A, Seitz U, Zhong Y, Groth S, Omar S, Papageorgiou C, Bohnacker S, Seewald S, Seifert H, Binmoeller K F, Thonke F, Soehendra N
Department of Interdisciplinary Endoscopy, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
Endoscopy. 2006 Dec;38(12):1235-40. doi: 10.1055/s-2006-944962.
Precut is a well-known technique that is used if repeated attempts at common bile duct (CBD) cannulation fail. Opinions on the complication rate of precut are conflicting, however. The aim of the present study was to compare the efficacy and complication rate of precut used as a primary method of CBD access with the efficacy and safety of the conventional technique.
During the 19-month study period, consecutive patients who were scheduled for first-time endoscopic sphincterotomy (ES) for a variety of biliary disorders were randomized into two groups: patients in group A underwent conventional wire-guided biliary cannulation followed by ES (with precut being performed only when this failed); in patients in group B precut was used as a primary technique to gain biliary access, followed by wire-guided ES. We used a specially designed, modified Erlangen type of sphincterotome for precutting.
A total of 291 patients (100 men, 191 women; mean +/- SD age 65 +/- 17.5 years) were recruited: 146 patients were assigned to group A (conventional approach) and 145 to group B (primary precut approach). The indications for ES were comparable in the two groups. In group A, wire-guided cannulation of the CBD failed in 42 patients. Secondary precut was successful in 41 of these patients, leading to an overall success rate of 99.3 %. In group B, the ES success rate using primary precut was 100 % at the first attempt. The mean time to successful deep CBD cannulation was 8.3 +/- 2.1 minutes in group A and 6.9 +/- 1.8 minutes in group B ( P < 0.001). The incidence of mild to moderate pancreatitis was similar in the two groups (2.9 % in group A vs. 2.1 % in group B, P > 0.05). Mild bleeding occurred in only one patient (from group A) and this was controlled by epinephrine injection. None of the study patients developed severe pancreatitis or perforation.
In experienced hands, an approach using primary precut appears to be at least as successful and safe as a conventional approach using guide-wire-based CBD cannulation followed by ES, and might also be a quicker method.
预切开术是一种在胆总管(CBD)插管反复尝试失败时使用的知名技术。然而,关于预切开术并发症发生率的观点存在分歧。本研究的目的是比较将预切开术作为CBD通路的主要方法的疗效和并发症发生率与传统技术的疗效和安全性。
在为期19个月的研究期间,将因各种胆道疾病计划首次进行内镜括约肌切开术(ES)的连续患者随机分为两组:A组患者先进行传统的导丝引导胆管插管,然后进行ES(仅在失败时进行预切开);B组患者将预切开术作为获得胆管通路的主要技术,随后进行导丝引导的ES。我们使用一种专门设计的改良型埃尔朗根式括约肌切开刀进行预切开。
共招募了291例患者(100例男性,191例女性;平均年龄±标准差为65±17.5岁):146例患者被分配到A组(传统方法),145例患者被分配到B组(预切开术优先方法)。两组ES的适应症具有可比性。在A组中,42例患者导丝引导的CBD插管失败。其中41例患者二次预切开成功,总体成功率为99.3%。在B组中,使用预切开术优先的ES首次尝试成功率为100%。A组成功进行深部CBD插管的平均时间为8.3±2.1分钟,B组为6.9±1.8分钟(P<0.001)。两组轻度至中度胰腺炎的发生率相似(A组为2.9%,B组为2.1%,P>0.05)。仅1例患者(来自A组)发生轻度出血,通过肾上腺素注射得以控制。研究患者均未发生严重胰腺炎或穿孔。
在经验丰富的医生手中,使用预切开术优先的方法似乎至少与使用基于导丝的CBD插管随后进行ES的传统方法一样成功和安全,并且可能也是一种更快的方法。