Advertisement

Endoscopic biliary and pancreatic sphincterotomy

  • Martin L. Freeman
  • Nalini M. Guda
Article

Opinion statement

Endoscopic sphincterotomy is performed on the biliary and pancreatic sphincters for a variety of indications such as removal of stones, as part of treatment of strictures, to facilitate placement of stents, for closure of ductal leaks, and other indications. Pancreatic sphincterotomy has been increasingly performed for the treatment of papillary stenosis, sphincter of Oddi dysfunction, and for chronic and acute recurrent pancreatitis. Efficacy is clear for more traditional indications, but is not as well defined for some of the latter indications. Minor papillotomy is most often performed for acute recurrent pancreatitis associated with pancreas divisum, sometimes for chronic pancreatitis, and for other indications. Equipment, techniques, and safety of sphincterotomy have improved significantly over the past decades. Success rates are substantially higher when a sphincterotomy is performed by high-volume endoscopists. However, complications such as pancreatitis, bleeding, and perforation can still occur in up to 10% of cases and may occasionally be severe. Patients with the least clear indication or chance of benefit from sphincterotomy, such as those with suspected sphincter of Oddi dysfunction or suspected but absent bile duct stones, are at highest risk of complications. Complications are less frequent, but fully not eliminated, with an experienced endoscopist or an expert in the field. Risk of pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) with biliary and/or pancreatic sphincterotomy can be substantially reduced by placement of a small-caliber pancreatic stent. Major challenges include defining the settings in which sphincterotomy is most likely to be effective, selection of appropriate patients for therapeutic ERCP by utilization of alternative imaging techniques such as magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography and endoscopic ultrasound, and dissemination of newer techniques into practice to ensure optimal safety and efficacy for sphincterotomy.

Keywords

Pancreatitis Chronic Pancreatitis Pancreatic Duct Choledochal Cyst Bile Duct Stone 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References and Recommended Reading

  1. 1.
    Classen M, Demling L: Endoscopic sphincterotomy of the papilla of vater and extraction of stones from the choledochal duct. Dtsch Med Wochenschr 1974, 99: 496–449.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kawai K, Akasaka Y, Murakami K, et al.: Endoscopic sphincterotomy of the ampulla of Vater. Gastrointest Endosc 1974, 20: 148–151.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Freeman ML, Guda NM: Cannulation techniques: a review of reported techniques. Gastrointest Endosc 2005, 61: 112–125. Detailed review of all the reported techniques for achieving ductal cannulation.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sherman S, Earle DT, Bucksot L, et al.: Does leaving a main pancreatic duct stent in place reduce the incidence of precut biliary sphincterotomy (ES)-induced pancreatitis? A final analysis of a randomized prospective study [abstract]. Gastrointest Endosc 1996, A489.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Freeman ML, Guda NM: Prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis: a comprehensive review. Gastrointest Endosc 2004, 59: 845–864. Comprehensive review regarding post-ERCP pancreatitis, including review of the literature for prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Schutz SM, Abbott RM: Grading ERCPs by degree of difficulty: a new concept to produce more meaningful outcome data. Gastrointest Endosc 2000, 5: 535–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Alsolaiman M, Cotton PB, Hawes RH, et al.: Techniques for pancreatic sphincterotomy; lack of expert consensus. Gastrointest Endosc 2004, 59: AB210.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Petersen BT: An evidence-based review of sphincter of Oddi dysfunction: part I, presentations with “objective” biliary findings (types I and II). Gastrointest Endosc 2004, 59: 525–534.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Petersen BT: Sphincter of Oddi dysfunction, part 2: evidence-based review of the presentations, with “objective” pancreatic findings (types I and II) and of presumptive type III. Gastrointest Endosc 2004, 59: 670–687.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cohen S, Bacon BR, Berlin JA, et al.: National Institutes of Health State-of-the-Science Conference Statement: ERCP for diagnosis and therapy, January 14–16, 2002. Gastrointest Endosc 2002, 56: 803–809. A must read. Comprehensive review of National Institute of Health state of science conference based on available evidence. Lists all appropriate indications for ERCP and available alternatives and treatment algorithms.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Freeman ML, Nelson DB, Sherman S, et al.: Complications of endoscopic biliary sphincterotomy. N Engl J Med 1996, 335: 909–918.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Freeman ML: Adverse outcomes of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: avoidance and management. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am 2003, 13: 775–798.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Masci E, Mariani A, Curioni S, Testoni PA: Risk factors for pancreatitis following endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: a meta-analysis. Endoscopy 2003, 35: 830–834.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Feitoza AB, Baron TH: Endoscopy and ERCP in the setting of previous upper GI tract surgery. Part I: reconstruction without alteration of pancreaticobiliary anatomy. Gastrointest Endosc 2001, 54: 743–749. Review outlining techniques for performing ERCP in patients with surgically altered anatomy.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mavrogiannis C, Liatsos C, Papanikolaou IS, et al.: Safety of extension of a previous endoscopic sphincterotomy: a prospective study. Am J Gastroenterol 2003, 98: 72–76.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Baron TH, Norton ID, Herman L: Endoscopic hemoclip placement for post-sphincterotomy bleeding. Gastrointest Endosc 2000, 52: 662.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Fogel EL, Eversman D, Jamidar P, et al.: Sphincter of Oddi dysfunction: pancreaticobiliary sphincterotomy with pancreatic stent placement has a lower rate of pancreatitis than biliary sphincterotomy alone. Endoscopy 2002, 34: 280–285.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mavrogiannis C, Liatsos C, Romanos A, et al.: Needleknife fistulotomy versus needle-knife precut papillotomy for the treatment of common bile duct stones. Gastrointest Endosc 1999, 50: 334–339.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Binmoeller KF, Seifert H, Gerke H, et al.: Papillary roof incision using the Erlangen-type pre-cut papillotome to achieve selective bile duct cannulation. Gastrointest Endosc 1996, 44: 689–695.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Goff JS: Long-term experience with the transpancreatic sphincter pre-cut approach to biliary sphincterotomy. Gastrointest Endosc 1999, 50: 642–645.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Catalano MF, Linder JD, Geenen JE: Endoscopic transpancreatic papillary septotomy for inaccessible obstructed bile ducts: Comparison with standard precut papillotomy. Gastrointest Endosc 2004, 60: 557–561.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Current Science Inc 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Martin L. Freeman
    • 1
  • Nalini M. Guda
  1. 1.Division of GastroenterologyHennepin County Medical CenterMinneapolisUSA

Personalised recommendations