A prospective randomized study of loop-tip versus straight-tip guidewire in wire-guided biliary cannulation
Wire-guided cannulation has been widely accepted as a useful technique for achieving selective biliary access because it has significantly increased the success rate of biliary cannulation compared with conventional contrast-assisted cannulation. Unlike conventional guidewires with a straight tip, a loop-tip guidewire (LGW) has a closed distal loop that may facilitate less traumatic access through the epithelial folds of the intra-duodenal biliary segments. The aim of this study was to compare the performance of a LGW with a straight-tip guidewire (SGW) in achieving successful selective biliary cannulation.
From December 2014 to December 2015, we performed 192 wire-guided biliary cannulations for a naïve papilla in a randomized controlled trial. Patients were randomly assigned to the LGW group (n = 96) or the SGW group (n = 96). Our study protocol did not include crossover to the other guidewire arm if randomized wire-guided cannulation proved unsuccessful within the first 10 min.
There was no significant difference in primary successful biliary cannulation between the two groups (LGW group: 86.5%; SGW group: 77.1%; p = 0.134). The rate and the mean number of unintentional pancreatic duct cannulations during wire-guided biliary cannulation were significantly lower in the LGW group than in the SGW group (LGW group: 14.6%; SGW group: 28.1%; p = 0.034; LGW group: 0.2 ± 0.5; SGW group: 0.6 ± 1.3; p = 0.007). Post-ERCP pancreatitis developed in 5.2% of patients in the LGW group and 8.3% of patients in the SGW group (p = 0.567).
The biliary cannulation rate of the LGW was not significantly different from those of conventional guidewires. Use of the LGW was associated with a lower rate of unintentional pancreatic duct cannulation during wire-guided biliary cannulation than use of the SGW.
Publisher URL: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00464-017-5851-z
Keeping up-to-date with research can feel impossible, with papers being published faster than you'll ever be able to read them. That's where Researcher comes in: we're simplifying discovery and making important discussions happen. With over 19,000 sources, including peer-reviewed journals, preprints, blogs, universities, podcasts and Live events across 10 research areas, you'll never miss what's important to you. It's like social media, but better. Oh, and we should mention - it's free.
Researcher displays publicly available abstracts and doesn’t host any full article content. If the content is open access, we will direct clicks from the abstracts to the publisher website and display the PDF copy on our platform. Clicks to view the full text will be directed to the publisher website, where only users with subscriptions or access through their institution are able to view the full article.