BACKGROUND: Pancreatic sphincterotomy is one of several factors associated with an increased risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP). The needle-knife pancreatic sphincterotomy technique (NKS) is purported to result in less-frequent post-ERCP pancreatitis compared with a standard pull-type sphincterotomy (PTS). OBJECTIVE: Our purpose was to analyze the experience with both endoscopic pancreatic sphincterotomy (EPS) techniques with respect to post-ERCP pancreatitis at a single tertiary-level referral center. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis. SETTING: Tertiary-care medical center (Charleston, South Carolina). PATIENTS: Patients without chronic pancreatitis and with normal retrograde pancreatogram who underwent EPS between 1994 and 2007 were identified. Patients were excluded for the following reasons: pancreatic stent not placed, both sphincterotomy techniques used, any balloon dilation of the ampullary orifice, precut or access papillotomy, pancreas divisum. RESULTS: A total of 481 patients were identified and underwent 510 ERCPs. Indications for ERCP were recurrent pancreatic-type pain (n = 353) or pancreatitis (n = 157). NKS was used for 395 of 510 (77.5%) cases versus 115 of 510 (22.5%) in which PTS was used. The incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis was no different between NKS (25/395, 6.4%) and PTS (9/115, 7.8%). Most cases were mild pancreatitis; a single episode of severe PEP occurred in each group. CONCLUSIONS: The risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis does not differ between EPS techniques when performed at a high-volume pancreaticobiliary referral center when using routine prophylactic pancreatic duct stent placement.
BACKGROUND:Pancreatic sphincterotomy is one of several factors associated with an increased risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP). The needle-knife pancreatic sphincterotomy technique (NKS) is purported to result in less-frequent post-ERCP pancreatitis compared with a standard pull-type sphincterotomy (PTS). OBJECTIVE: Our purpose was to analyze the experience with both endoscopic pancreatic sphincterotomy (EPS) techniques with respect to post-ERCP pancreatitis at a single tertiary-level referral center. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis. SETTING: Tertiary-care medical center (Charleston, South Carolina). PATIENTS: Patients without chronic pancreatitis and with normal retrograde pancreatogram who underwent EPS between 1994 and 2007 were identified. Patients were excluded for the following reasons: pancreatic stent not placed, both sphincterotomy techniques used, any balloon dilation of the ampullary orifice, precut or access papillotomy, pancreas divisum. RESULTS: A total of 481 patients were identified and underwent 510 ERCPs. Indications for ERCP were recurrent pancreatic-type pain (n = 353) or pancreatitis (n = 157). NKS was used for 395 of 510 (77.5%) cases versus 115 of 510 (22.5%) in which PTS was used. The incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis was no different between NKS (25/395, 6.4%) and PTS (9/115, 7.8%). Most cases were mild pancreatitis; a single episode of severe PEP occurred in each group. CONCLUSIONS: The risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis does not differ between EPS techniques when performed at a high-volume pancreaticobiliary referral center when using routine prophylactic pancreatic duct stent placement.