Prospective multicenter study comparing a standard reusable sphincterotome with a disposable triple-lumen sphincterotome.
BACKGROUND
Few data are available on the comparative performance of different types of sphincterotome. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of endoscopic sphincterotomy performed with either a reusable, single-lumen sphincterotome or a disposable triple-lumen instrument.


METHODS
Seventy-seven consecutive adults requiring endoscopic sphincterotomy were prospectively and randomly assigned treatment with either a standard reusable single-lumen sphincterotome (group A, n = 38) or a disposable triple-lumen sphincterotome with a guidewire (group B, n = 39). The success rate, complications, and cost of the procedure per patient were compared.


RESULTS
Deep cannulation was successful in 87% of cases in each group and sphincterotomy was achieved in 76% and 84% of cases in group A and B, respectively (NS). In the endoscopists' opinion the two instruments performed almost equally well. Twelve procedure-related complications occurred: 5 (all hemorrhages) in group A and 7 (1 hemorrhage, 4 cases of pancreatitis and 2 of cholangitis) in group B (NS). Eight reusable sphincterotomes were used with a cost of $61 per patient, compared with 39 disposable sphincterotomes with a cost of $241 per patient (p = 0.02).


CONCLUSIONS
A standard reusable sphincterotome is satisfactory for most endoscopic sphincterotomies, and yields a substantial cost savings without compromising the success or safety of the procedure.
Canard
J M
JM
Services d'Endoscopie Digestive, Paris, France.
Cellier
C
C
Houcke
P
P
Laurent
J
J
Gorce
D
D
Landi
B
B
D000368:Aged; D003365:Costs and Cost Analysis; D004209:Disposable Equipment; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D011183:Postoperative Complications; D011446:Prospective Studies; D016717:Sphincterotomy, Endoscopic / Q000191:economics / Q000295:instrumentation* / Q000379:methods; D016896:Treatment Outcome