Revision of biliary sphincterotomy by re-cut, balloon dilation or temporary stenting: comparison of clinical outcome and complication rate (with video).

Revision of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) may be necessary following previous biliary endoscopic sphincterotomy for recurrent biliary symptoms related to biliary stone recurrence, cholangitis or post-biliary endoscopic sphincterotomy (bEST) papillary stenosis and cholestasis. The aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate the clinical outcome and complication rate associated with re-cut, balloon dilation and biliary metal stenting in revision ERCP.  From January 2010 to January 2015, 139 subjects with stigma of a previous sphincterotomy required a revision ERCP (64 Men/75 Women; mean age 71 years; range 32 - 101 years). The most appropriate technique (re-cut, balloon dilation or fully covered self-expandable metal stent [FCSEMS] placement) was tailored according to underlying pathologies and anatomical features.  Technical success was achieved in all cases (100 %). Clinical success (definitive clearance of common bile duct stones and liver test normalization) was achieved in 127 out of 139 patients (91.4 %) with a mean follow up of 12 months. 12 clinical failures occurred: 11 patients required a new ERCP after an average of 9 months meanwhile 1 patient required surgery for definite treatment. The overall complication rate was 9 % (13 /139) with 5 acute complications (intra-procedural) and 8 short-term complications (before 1 month). Group specific overall complication rates were as follow: re-cut 11.5 % (8 bleeds and 3 perforations), balloon dilation 25 % (4 mild PEP [post-ERCP pancreatitis]), FCSEMS 14.3 % (1 moderate PEP), re-cut + balloon dilation and re-cut + FCSEMS 0 %. A statistically significant higher risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis was highlighted in the balloon dilation group meanwhile re-cut was burdened by a higher risk of bleeding and perforation.  Revision ERCP following previous bEST is a feasible procedure enabling clinical success in most cases. Different approaches are available and must be considered according to underlying pathologies. Re-cut is burdened by a higher risk of perforation and bleeding compared to balloon dilation and SEMS meanwhile balloon dilation is associated to increased risk of PEP.