Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Quality assurance of sphincterotomy: A prospective single-centre survey

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Central European Journal of Medicine

    We’re sorry, something doesn't seem to be working properly.

    Please try refreshing the page. If that doesn't work, please contact support so we can address the problem.

Abstract

Quality assurance becomes an increasingly important part of clinical medicine and of the field of endoscopy. Endoscopic sphincterotomy is associated with a fairly high complication rate. We aimed to assess our quality of sphincterotomy for benchmarking by using a prospective electronic database registry, and to identify potential risk factors for post-interventional complications. Over 2 years, 471 sphincterotomies were performed in a single tertiary referral centre. Patient- and procedure-related variables were prospectively recorded with the support of a multi-centre international sphincterotomy registry. Multivariate analysis was performed. The overall post-interventional complication rate was 9.3%. Pancreatitis happened in 5.5%, bleeding in 2.1%, perforation in 1.3%, and cholangitis in 0.4%. In the multivariate analysis following variables remained highly significant and predictive for complications: ‘papilla only in lateral view’ (p=0.001), antiplatelet therapy (p=0.024), and opacification with contrast up to the pancreatic tail (p=0.001). The primary success rate of sphincterotomy was 95.1%. The rate of post-interventional pancreatitis did not differ significantly regardless of the presence of prophylactic pancreatic stent (p=0.56). The outcome of sphincterotomy in our centre matches with literature data. The extent of pancreatic duct opacification has an influence on the pancreatitis rate. Prevention of pancreatitis by inserting pancreatic stents is not confirmed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Mc Cune WS, Shorb PE, Moscovitz H. Endoscopic cannulation of the ampulla of vater: a preliminary report. Ann Surg 1968;167:752–756

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Carr-Locke DL. Overview of the role of ERCP in the management of biliary tract and pancreas. Gastrointest Endosc 2002;56:157–160

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Freeman M, Nelson D, Sherman S, et. al. Complications of endoscopic biliary sphincterotomy. N Engl J Med 1996;335:909–918

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Freeman ML, Guda NM. ERCP cannulation: a review of reported techniques. Gastrointest Endosc 2005;61:113–125

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Costamagna G, Familiari P, Marchese M, et al. Endoscopic biliopancreatic investigations and therapy. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol 2008;22:865–881

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Kapral C, Duller C, Wewalka F, et al. Case volume and outcome of endoscopic retrograde cholangiography: results of a nationwide Austrian benchmarking project. Endoscopy 2008;40:625–630

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Baron TH, Petersen BT, Mergener K, et al. Quality indicators for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Gastrointest Endosc 2006;63:29–34

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Williams EJ, Taylor S, Fairclough P, et al. BSG Audit of ERCP. Are we meeting the standards set for endoscopy? Results of a large-scale prospective survey of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatograph practice. Gut 2007;56:821–829

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Cotton PB, Lehman G, Vennes J, et al. Endoscopic sphincterotomy complications and their management: an attempt at consensus. Gastrointest Endosc 1991;37:383–393

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Bjorkman DJ, Popp Jr. JW. Measuring the quality of endoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol 2006;101:864–865

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Faigel DO, Pike IM, Baron TH, et al. ASGE/ACG Taskforce on Quality in Endoscopy. Quality indicators for gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures: an introduction. Am J Gastroenterol 2006;101:866–872

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Andriulli A, Loperfido S, Napolitano G, et al. Incidence rates of post-ERCP complications: a systematic survey of prospective studies. Am J Gastroenterol 2007;102:1781–1788

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Barthet M, Lesarvre N, Desjeux A, et al. Complications of endoscopic sphincterotomy: results from a single tertiary referral center. Endoscopy 2002;24:991–997

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Loperfido S, Angelini G, Benedetti G, et al. Major early complications from diagnostic and therapeutic ERCP: a prospective multicenter study. Gastrointest Endosc 1998;48:1–10

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Wang P, Li Z-S, Liu F, et al. Risk factors for ERCPrelated complications: a prospective multicenter study. Am J Gastroenterol 2009;104:31–40

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Rabenstein T, Schneider HT, Hahn EG, et al. 25 years of endoscopic sphincterotomy in Erlangen: Assessment of the experience in 3498 Patients. Endoscopy 1998; 30 Suppl 2:A194–A201

    Google Scholar 

  17. Zinsser E, Hoffmann A, Will U, et al. Success and complication rates of diagnostic and therapeutic endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography — a prospective study. Z Gastroenterol 1999;37:707–713

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Cheng CL, Sherman S, Watkins JL, et al. Risk factors for post-ERCP pancreatitis: A prospective multicenter study. Am J Gastroenterol 2006;101:1390–147

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Freeman ML, DiSario JA, Nelson DB, et al. Risk factors for post-ERCP pancreatitis: a prospective, multicenter study. Gastrointest Endosc 2001;54:425–434

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Vandervoort J, Soetikno RM, Tham TCT, et al. Risk factors for complications after performance of ERCP. Gastrointest Endosc 2002;56:652–656

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Friedland S, Soetikno RM, Vandervoort J, et al. Bedside scoring system to predict the risk of developing pancreatitis following ERCP. Endoscopy 2002;34:483–488

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Andriulli A, Clemente R, Solmi L, et al. Gabexate or somatostatin administration before ERCP in patients at high risk for post-ERCP pancreatitis: a multicenter, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial. Gastrointest Endosc 2002;56:488–495.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Masci E, Toti G, Mariani A, et al. Complications of diagnostic and therapeutic ERCP: a prospective multi center study. Am J Gastroenterol 2001;96:4417–4423

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Manes G, Di Giorgio P, Repici A, et al. An analysis of the factors associated with the development of complications in patients undergoing precut sphincterotomy: a prospective, controlled, randomized, multicenter study. Am J Gastroenterol 2009;104:2412–2417

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Mehta SN, Pavone E, Barkun JS, et al. Predictors of post-ERCP complications in patients with suspected choledocholithiasis. Endoscopy 1998;30:457–463

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Fazel A, Quadri A, Catalano MF, et al. Does a pancreatic duct stent prevent post-ERCP pancreatitis? A prospective randomized study. Gastrointest Endosc 2003;57:291–294

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Tarnasky PR, Palesch YY, Cunningham JT, et al. Pancreatic stenting prevents pancreatitis after biliary sphincterotomy in patients with sphincter of Oddi dysfunction. Gastroenterology 1998;115:1518–1524

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Aizawa T, Ueno N. Stent placement in the pancreatic duct prevents pancreatitis after endoscopic sphincter dilation for removal of bile duct stones. Gastrointest Endosc 2001;54:209–213

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Singh P, Das A, Isenberg G, et al. Does prophylactic pancreatic stent placement reduce the risk of post-ERCP acute pancreatitis? A metaanalysis of controlled trials. Gastrointest Endosc 2004;60:544–550

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Ponchon T, Pilleul F. Diagnostic ERCP. Endoscopy 2002;34:29–42

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Akashi R, Kiyozumi T, Tanaka T, et al. Mechanism of pancreatitis caused by ERCP. Gastrointest Endosc 2002;55:50–54

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Amelsberg A, Fölsch UR. Complications in endoscopic papillotomy. Z Gastroenterol 1997;35:1111–1114

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Kantonsspital St. Gallen, Rorschacher Strasse 95, CH-9007, St. Gallen, Switzerland

    Michael Christian Sulz, Markus Sagmeister, Martin Schelling, Janek Binek, Jan Borovicka & Christa Meyenberger

  2. Hanno Ulmer, Department of Medical Statistics, Informatics and Health Economics, Innsbruck Medical University, A-6020, Innsbruck, Austria

    Hanno Ulmer

Authors
  1. Michael Christian Sulz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Markus Sagmeister
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Martin Schelling
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Janek Binek
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Jan Borovicka
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Hanno Ulmer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Christa Meyenberger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christa Meyenberger.

About this article

Cite this article

Sulz, M.C., Sagmeister, M., Schelling, M. et al. Quality assurance of sphincterotomy: A prospective single-centre survey. cent.eur.j.med 7, 9–19 (2012). https://doi.org/10.2478/s11536-011-0113-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/s11536-011-0113-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation