title: Evaluation of early precut with needle-knife in difficult biliary cannulation during ERCP.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  There is scarce information on whether performing the precut procedure early rather than after several cannulation attempts is associated with different success and complication rates.
  
  
  OBJECTIVE
  The aim of this retrospective study was is to compare the early precut technique with the standard one in terms of the results and complications.
  
  
  METHODS
  The contemporary success rate and postoperative complications in 792 endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography cases were frequently observed during the period from June 2007 to May 2011, and 56 of these cases were carried out with precut biliary sphincterotomy after the standard sphincterotomy had failed.
  
  
  RESULTS
  The success rate for standard sphincterotomy was 89.8%: 51 out of 56 cases were carried out with precut biliary sphincterotomy and succeeded. The total success rate was 96.3%. The difference was significant (χ2=25.62, p<0.01) compared to the success rate of first cannulation, while the difference in complication rates between precut and standard sphincterotomy was minor (9.9 vs. 12.5%, p>0.05).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Early precut with a needle-knife in a difficult biliary cannulation was safe and effective if performed by experienced endoscopists.
authors: Department of Gastroenterology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, Suzhou, 215006, China.
authors: Jian-hong
authors: JH
authors: Zhu
authors: Qiang
authors: Q
authors: Liu
authors: De-qing
authors: DQ
authors: Zhang
authors: Huang
authors: H
authors: Feng
authors: Wei-chang
authors: WC
authors: Chen
mesh_terms: D002404:Catheterization / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D002760:Cholangiopancreatography, Endoscopic Retrograde / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D012189:Retrospective Studies; D016717:Sphincterotomy, Endoscopic / Q000009:adverse effects / Q000706:statistics & numerical data
references: Gastrointest Endosc. 1999 Dec;50(6):775-9
references: 10570335
references: Curr Gastroenterol Rep. 2001 Apr;3(2):147-53
references: 11276383
references: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2004 Nov;2(11):971-7
references: 15551249
references: Gastrointest Endosc. 2008 Apr;67(4):629-33
references: 17826775
references: N Engl J Med. 1996 Sep 26;335(13):909-18
references: 8782497
references: World J Gastroenterol. 2007 Jul 21;13(27):3734-7
references: 17659735
references: Acta Gastroenterol Latinoam. 2001 Oct;31(4):323-7
references: 11766544
references: Endoscopy. 1998 Oct;30(8):691-6
references: 9865558
references: Gastrointest Endosc. 2002 Nov;56(5):652-6
references: 12397271
references: Endoscopy. 2003 Aug;35(8):S19-23
references: 12929049
references: Gastrointest Endosc. 2002 Mar;55(3):425-7
references: 11868023
references: Gastrointest Endosc. 2005 Nov;62(5):669-74
references: 16246677
references: Gastrointest Endosc. 1994 Jul-Aug;40(4):514-8
references: 7926553
references: Gastrointest Endosc. 1991 May-Jun;37(3):383-93
references: 2070995
references: Gastroenterol Clin North Am. 2007 Jun;36(2):259-76, vii-viii
references: 17533078
references: Endoscopy. 1996 May;28(4):334-9
references: 8813498
references: Gastrointest Endosc. 1996 Jul;44(1):48-53
references: 8836716