BACKGROUND: Review of ERCP x-ray films by radiologists is routine, but the utility of this practice is unproven. The aim of this study was to assess whether the routine post-procedural interpretation of ERCP films by radiologists alters patient management. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of 212 ERCPs followed by a prospective analysis of 112 ERCPs was performed. Comparative ductogram interpretations were categorized as: I, complete agreement; II, minor findings reported only by the radiologist; III, findings reported only by the endoscopist; and IV, major findings reported only by the radiologist that altered or should have altered management. RESULTS: In the retrospective analysis, 289 ductograms were identified, and interpretations were classified as: category I, 73%; category II, 16%; category III, 10.7%; and category IV, 0.3%. In the prospective study, interpretations of 167 ductograms were analyzed and classified as follows: category I, 84%; category II, 11%; category III, 5%; category IV, none. CONCLUSIONS: Post-procedure interpretation of ERCP spot x-ray films by radiologists adds little to patient management. Selective consultation with radiologists would appear to be more appropriate than review by radiologists of ERCP spot x-ray films on a routine basis.
BACKGROUND: Review of ERCP x-ray films by radiologists is routine, but the utility of this practice is unproven. The aim of this study was to assess whether the routine post-procedural interpretation of ERCP films by radiologists alters patient management. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of 212 ERCPs followed by a prospective analysis of 112 ERCPs was performed. Comparative ductogram interpretations were categorized as: I, complete agreement; II, minor findings reported only by the radiologist; III, findings reported only by the endoscopist; and IV, major findings reported only by the radiologist that altered or should have altered management. RESULTS: In the retrospective analysis, 289 ductograms were identified, and interpretations were classified as: category I, 73%; category II, 16%; category III, 10.7%; and category IV, 0.3%. In the prospective study, interpretations of 167 ductograms were analyzed and classified as follows: category I, 84%; category II, 11%; category III, 5%; category IV, none. CONCLUSIONS: Post-procedure interpretation of ERCP spot x-ray films by radiologists adds little to patient management. Selective consultation with radiologists would appear to be more appropriate than review by radiologists of ERCP spot x-ray films on a routine basis.
Authors: Christoph F Dietrich; Noor L Bekkali; Sean Burmeister; Yi Dong; Simon M Everett; Michael Hocke; Andre Ignee; Wei On; Srisha Hebbar; Kofi Oppong; Siyu Sun; Christian Jenssen; Barbara Braden Journal: Endosc Ultrasound Date: 2022 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 5.628