Mohamed Abdelhafez1, Eckart Frimberger1, Peter Klare1, Bernhard Haller2, Roland M Schmid1, Stefan von Delius3. 1. Klinik und Poliklinik für Innere Medizin 2, Klinikum rechts der Isar der Technischen Universität München, Munich, Germany. 2. Institut für Medizinische Statistik und Epidemiologie, Klinikum rechts der Isar der Technischen Universität München, Munich, Germany. 3. Klinik und Poliklinik für Innere Medizin 2, Klinikum rechts der Isar der Technischen Universität München, Munich, Germany. stefan.delius@mri.tum.de.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: A postsurgical anatomy renders endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) more challenging. Although different EST techniques for such a situation exist, comparative studies are lacking. The aim of the study was to compare the efficacy of different EST techniques using a novel mechanical simulator. METHODS: Ten expert endoscopists performed 6 different EST techniques on a novel mechanical Billroth II (BII) simulator in a random sequence. The EST techniques were (1) standard sphincterotome used with a side-viewing endoscope, (2) BII sphincterotome used with a side-viewing endoscope, (3) needle-knife EST guided by biliary endoprosthesis used with a side-viewing endoscope, (4) standard sphincterotome used with a forward-viewing endoscope, (5) BII sphincterotome used with a forward-viewing endoscope, and (6) needle-knife EST guided by biliary endoprosthesis used with a forward-viewing endoscope. The results of videotaped ESTs were evaluated by a blinded expert and duration for each EST modality was calculated. RESULTS: Needle-knife EST guided by endoprosthesis was rated superior to EST using a BII sphincterotome (p = 0.017) or a standard sphincterotome (p < 0.001). EST using the BII sphincterotome was significantly faster than EST with the needle knife (p = 0.004) and the standard sphincterotome (p = 0.005). There were no differences between the use of a forward-viewing endoscope and a side-viewing endoscope. CONCLUSION: In an ex vivo model for EST in B II gastrectomy needle-knife EST guided by endoprosthesis achieved superior ratings in comparison to the use of a BII sphincterotome, although it was more time-consuming. A standard sphincterotome should not be used for such a procedure.
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: A postsurgical anatomy renders endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) more challenging. Although different EST techniques for such a situation exist, comparative studies are lacking. The aim of the study was to compare the efficacy of different EST techniques using a novel mechanical simulator. METHODS: Ten expert endoscopists performed 6 different EST techniques on a novel mechanical Billroth II (BII) simulator in a random sequence. The EST techniques were (1) standard sphincterotome used with a side-viewing endoscope, (2) BII sphincterotome used with a side-viewing endoscope, (3) needle-knife EST guided by biliary endoprosthesis used with a side-viewing endoscope, (4) standard sphincterotome used with a forward-viewing endoscope, (5) BII sphincterotome used with a forward-viewing endoscope, and (6) needle-knife EST guided by biliary endoprosthesis used with a forward-viewing endoscope. The results of videotaped ESTs were evaluated by a blinded expert and duration for each EST modality was calculated. RESULTS: Needle-knife EST guided by endoprosthesis was rated superior to EST using a BII sphincterotome (p = 0.017) or a standard sphincterotome (p < 0.001). EST using the BII sphincterotome was significantly faster than EST with the needle knife (p = 0.004) and the standard sphincterotome (p = 0.005). There were no differences between the use of a forward-viewing endoscope and a side-viewing endoscope. CONCLUSION: In an ex vivo model for EST in B II gastrectomy needle-knife EST guided by endoprosthesis achieved superior ratings in comparison to the use of a BII sphincterotome, although it was more time-consuming. A standard sphincterotome should not be used for such a procedure.
Keywords:
Billroth II; ERCP training model; Endoscopy simulator; Roux-en-Y; Sphincterotomy
Authors: J J Bergman; A M van Berkel ; M J Bruno; P Fockens; E A Rauws; J G Tijssen; G N Tytgat; K Huibregtse Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2001-01 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Stefan von Delius; Philipp Thies; Alexander Meining; Stefan Wagenpfeil; Maria Burian; Wolfgang Huber; Hans Weidenbach; Matthias P Ebert; Bruno Neu; Leopold Ludwig; John Almeida; Christian Prinz; Roland M Schmid; Eckart Frimberger Journal: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2008-11-07 Impact factor: 11.382
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