How do we ensure that trainees learn to perform biliary sphincterotomy safely, appropriately, and effectively?

Article

Abstract

Sphincterotomy is a high-risk procedure with considerable complications. Trainees should learn and understand the basics of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and sphincterotomy to ensure good clinical outcomes. Teaching of sphincterotomy usually involves supervised hands-on clinical practice with patients. Proper positioning of the endoscope allows for correct orientation with the papilla, and performing the cut along the “ideal” biliary axis optimizes results and reduces complications. Learning and practicing sphincterotomy can be supplemented by simulator models. The Neo-Papilla model uses a modified chicken heart attached to the porcine ex vivo model and allows for cutting of actual tissue. The mechanical simulator allows trainees to practice cutting an artificial papilla marked with the “perfect” axis to understand the proper sphincterotomy technique. Understanding the indications and contraindications helps with appropriate application of sphincterotomy. Objective criteria should be available for assessing performance. Improved technique and avoiding a deviated cut may improve overall results and prevent complications.

References and Recommended Reading

  1. 1.
    Leung J: Fundamentals of ERCP. In Advanced Digestive Endoscopy: ERCP. Edited by Cotton PB, Leung JW. Oxford: Blackwell Science; 2005:17–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cotton PB, Lehman G, Vennes JA, et al.: Endoscopic sphincterotomy complications and their management: an attempt at consensus. Gastrointest Endosc 1991, 37:383–393.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Freeman ML, DiSario JA, Nelson DB, et al.: Risk factors for post-ERCP pancreatitis: a prospective, multicenter study. Gastrointest Endosc 2001, 96:417–423.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Freeman ML: Post-ERCP pancreatitis: patient and technique related risk factors. JOP 2002, 3:169–176.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Freeman ML, Nelson DB, Sherman S, et al.: Complications of endoscopic biliary sphincterotomy. N Engl J Med 1996, 335:909–918.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Leung J, Leung F: Papillotomy Performance Scoring Scale: a pilot validation study focused on the cut axis. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2006, 24:308–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Elta G, Barnett JL, Wille RT, et al.: Pure cut electrocautery current for sphincterotomy causes less post procedure pancreatitis than blended current. Gastrointest Endosc 1998, 47:149–153.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Perini RF, Sadurski R, Cotton PB, et al.: Post sphincterotomy bleeding after the introduction of microprocessor-controlled electrocautery: does the new technology make the difference? Gastrointest Endosc 2005, 61:53–57.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Igarashi Y, Ukita T, Inoue H, et al.: Which modality can be standardized for endoscopic sphincterotomy in Japan. Digest Endosc 2002, 14(Suppl):S10–S12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sherman S, Yzer MF, Lehman GA: Wire-guided sphincterotomy. Am J Gastroenterol 1994, 89:2125–2129.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kim DK, Han JD, Choi JY, et al.: Do endoscopic sphincterotomy and periampullary diverticulum affect the results of endoscopic large balloon sphincteroplasty along with endoscopic phincterotomy in patients with large bile duct stones [abstract]? Gastrointest Endosc 2006, 63:AB288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cohen J: Training and credentialing in gastrointestinal endoscopy. In Advanced Endoscopy E-Book: Endoscopy Practice and Safety. Edited by Cotton PB. Oxford: Blackwell Science; 2005:1–50. http://www.gastrohep.com.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sedlack R, Petersen B, Binmoeller K, Kolars J: A direct comparison of ERCP teaching models. Gastrointest Endosc 2003, 57:886–890.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Nelson DB, Bosco JJ, Curtis WD, et al.: Technology status evaluation report: endoscopy simulators. Gastrointest Endosc 1999, 51:790–792.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Neumann M, Mayer G, Ell C, et al.: The Erlangen Endo-Trainer: lifelike simulation for diagnostic and interventional endoscopic retrograde cholangiography. Endoscopy 2000, 32:906–910.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sedlack RE, Petersen BT, Kolars JC: The impact of a hands-on ERCP workshop on clinical practice. Gastrointest Endosc 2005, 61:67–71.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Harewood GC, Baron TH: An assessment of the learning curve for precut biliary sphinctereotomy. Am J Gastroenterol 2002, 97:1708–1712.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Matthes K, Cohen J: The Neo-Papilla: a new modification of porcine ex vivo simulators for ERCP training. Gastrointest Endosc 2006, 64:570–576.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bar-Meir S: Simbionix simulator. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am 2006, 16:471–478, vii.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Leung J, Lee J, Wilson R, et al.: Development of a novel mechanical ERCP simulator. Gastrointest Endosc 2007, 65:1056–1062.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Williams EJ, Taylor S, Fairclough P, et al.: Are we meeting the standards set for endoscopy? Results of a large-scale prospective survey of endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatograph practice. Gut 2007, 56:821–829.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Naylor G, Gatta L, Butler A, et al.: Setting up a quality assurance program in endoscopy. Endoscopy 2003, 35:701–707.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Leung J, Leung F: Mechanical simulator for ERCP training [abstract]. Gastrointest Endosc 2006, 63:AB115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Cotton P: Quality lecture: towards excellence and accountability. In ASGE Plenary Session: The Future of Endoscopy: What, Who and How. Program and Abstracts of Digestive Disease Week 2005. Chicago: American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy; 2005.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Cotton PB: How many times have you done this procedure, doctor? Am J Gastroenterol 2002, 7:522–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Jowell PS, Baillie J, Branch MS, et al.: Quantitative assessment of procedural competence. A prospective study of training in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Ann Intern Med 1996, 125:983–989.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Eisen GM, Baron TH, Dominitz JA, et al.: Methods of granting hospital privileges to perform gastrointestinal endoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2002, 55:780–783.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Verma D, Gostout CJ, Petersen BT, et al.: Establishing a true assessment of endoscopic competence in ERCP during training and beyond: a single-operator learning curve for deep biliary cannulation in patients with native papillary anatomy. Gastrointest Endosc 2007, 65:394–400.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Baillie J, Testoni PA: Are we meeting the standards set for ERCP? Gut 2007, 56:744–746.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Davis School of MedicineUniversity of CaliforniaSacramentoUSA

Personalised recommendations