Pure cut vs. Endocut in endoscopic biliary sphincterotomy: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

Abstract

Background and study aims Biliary sphincterotomy is a crucial step in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), a procedure known to carry a 5% to 10% risk of complications. The relationship between Pure cut, Endocut, post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) and bleeding is unclear. This systematic review and meta-analysis compared these two current types and their relationships with adverse events.

Patients and methods This systematic review involved searching articles in multiple databases until August 2023 comparing pure cut versus Endocut in biliary sphincterotomy. The meta-analysis followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA).

Results A total of 987 patients from four randomized controlled trials were included. Overall pancreatitis: A higher risk of pancreatitis was found in the Endocut group than in the Pure cut group (P=0.001, RD=0.04 [range, 0.01 to 0.06]; I²=29%). Overall immediate bleeding: Statistical significance was found to favor Endocut, (P=0.05; RD=–0.15 [range, –0.29 to –0.00]; I²=93%). No statistical significance between current modes was found in immediate bleeding without endoscopic intervention (P=0.10; RD=–0.13 [range, –0.29 to 0.02]; I²=88%), immediate bleeding with endoscopic intervention (P=0.06; RD=–0.07 [range, –0.14 to 0.00]; I²=76%), delayed bleeding (P=0.40; RD=0.01 [range, –0.02 to 0.05]; I²=72%), zipper cut (P=0.58; RD=–0.03 [range, –0.16 to 0.09]; I²=97%), perforation (P=1.00; RD=0.00 [range, –0.01 to 0.01]; I²=0%) and cholangitis (P=0.77; RD=0.00 [range, –0.01 to 0.02]; I²=29%).

Conclusions The available data in the literature show that Endocut carries an increased risk for PEP and does not prevent delayed or clinically significant bleeding, although it prevents intraprocedural bleeding. Based on such findings, Pure cut should be the preferred electric current mode for biliary sphincterotomy.

Keywords

Pancreatobiliary (ERCP/PTCD) - ERC topics - Stones

Publikationsverlauf

Eingereicht: 22. Dezember 2023

Angenommen nach Revision: 12. April 2024

Accepted Manuscript online:
13. Mai 2024

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
03. Juli 2024

• References

• 1 Thaker AM, Mosko JD, Berzin TM. Post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis. Gastroenterol Rep (Oxf) 2015; 3: 32-40 DOI: 10.1093/gastro/gou083. (PMID: 25406464)
• 2 de Clemente Junior CC, Bernardo WM, Franzini TP. et al. Comparison between endoscopic sphincterotomy vs endoscopic sphincterotomy associated with balloon dilation for removal of bile duct stones: A systematic review and meta-analysis based on randomized controlled trial. World J Gastrointest Endosc 2018; 10: 130-144
• 3 Furuya CK, Sakai P, Marinho FRT. et al. Papillary fistulotomy vs conventional cannulation for endoscopic biliary access: A prospective randomized trial. World J Gastroenterol 2018; 24: 1803-1811 DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v24.i16.1803. (PMID: 29713133)
• 4 Kouanda A, Bayudan A, Hussain A. et al. Current state of biliary cannulation techniques during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP): International survey study. Endosc Int Open 2023; 11: E588-E598
• 5 Ak Ç, Aykut H, Pala E. et al. Post-ERCP complication analysis of an experienced center. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 2022; 32: 707-713 DOI: 10.1097/SLE.0000000000001113. (PMID: 36468895)
• 6 Williams EJ, Taylor S, Fairclough P. et al. Risk factors for complication following ERCP; results of a large-scale, prospective multicenter study. Endoscopy 2007; 39: 793-801 DOI: 10.1055/s-2007-966723. (PMID: 17703388)
• 7 Andriulli A, Loperfido S, Napolitano G. et al. Incidence rates of post-ERCP complications: a systematic survey of prospective studies. Am J Gastroenterol 2007; 102: 1781-1788 DOI: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2007.01279.x. (PMID: 17509029)
• 8 Güitrón-Cantú A, Adalid-Martínez R, Gutiérrez-Bermúdez JA. et al. Complications in diagnostic and therapeutic endoscopic cholangiopancreatography. Prospective study. Rev Gastroenterol Mex 2007; 72: 227-235 (PMID: 18402212)
• 9 Marsano LS. Principles of Electrosurgery. https://louisville.edu/medicine/departments/medicine/dividions/gimedicine/physician-resources/lectures/procedures/electrocautery
• 10 Fukami N. Endoscopic submucosal dissection – principles and practice. New York: Springer; 2015
• 11 Ratani RS, Mills TN, Ainley CC. et al. Electrophysical factors influencing endoscopic sphincterotomy. Gastrointest Endosc 1999; 49: 43-52 DOI: 10.1016/s0016-5107(99)70444-x. (PMID: 9869722)
• 12 Rey JF, Beilenhoff U, Neumann CS. et al. European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) guideline: the use of electrosurgical units. Endoscopy 2010; 42: 764-772 DOI: 10.1055/s-0030-1255594. (PMID: 20635311)
• 13 Perini RF, Sadurski R, Cotton PB. et al. Post-sphincterotomy bleeding after the introduction of microprocessor-controlled electrosurgery: does the new technology make the difference. Gastrointest Endosc 2005; 61: 53-57
• 14 Curtiss LE. High frequency currents in endoscopy: a review of principles and precautions. Gastrointest Endosc 1973; 20: 9-12 DOI: 10.1016/s0016-5107(73)73855-4. (PMID: 4730605)
• 15 Funari MP, Ribeiro IB, de Moura DTH. et al. Adverse events after biliary sphincterotomy: Does the electric current mode make a difference? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Clin Res Hepatol Gastroenterol 2020; 44: 739-752
• 16 Verma D, Kapadia A, Adler DG. Pure versus mixed electrosurgical current for endoscopic biliary sphincterotomy: a meta-analysis of adverse outcomes. Gastrointest Endosc 2007; 66: 283-290 DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2007.01.018. (PMID: 17643701)
• 17 Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM. et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021; 372: n71 DOI: 10.1136/bmj.n71. (PMID: 33782057)
• 18 PROSPERO 2019. https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/ DOI: 10.1111/jog.14834
• 19 Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions [Internet]. Cochrane.org.2019. https://www.training.cochrane.org/handbook
• 20 Review Manager (RevMan). Version 5. 4. 1. The Cochrane Collaboration, 21 09. 2020. https://revman.cochrane.org.
• 21 Gradepro.org. https://www.gradepro.org/terms/cite
• 22 Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC. et al. Cochrane Bias Methods Group; Cochrane Statistical Methods Group. The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 2011; 343: d5928 DOI: 10.1136/bmj.d5928.
• 23 Cotton PB, Lehman G, Vennes J. et al. Endoscopic sphincterotomy complications and their management: an attempt at consensus. Gastrointest Endosc 1991; 37: 383-393
• 24 Cirocchi R, Kelly MD, Griffiths EA. et al. A systematic review of the management and outcome of ERCP related duodenal perforations using a standardized classification system. Surgeon 2017; 15: 379-387 DOI: 10.1016/j.surge.2017.05.004. (PMID: 28619547)
• 25 Li DF, Yang MF, Chang X. et al. Endocut versus conventional blended electrosurgical current for endoscopic biliary sphincterotomy: A meta-analysis of complications. Dig Dis Sci 2019; 64: 2088-2094 DOI: 10.1007/s10620-019-05513-w. (PMID: 30778871)
• 26 Pereira Funari M, Ottoboni Brunaldi V, Mendonça Proença I. et al. Pure cut or Endocut for biliary sphincterotomy? A multicenter randomized clinical trial. Am J Gastroenterol 2023; 118: 1871-1879 DOI: 10.14309/ajg.0000000000002458. (PMID: 37543748)
• 27 Norton ID, Petersen BT, Bosco J. et al. A randomized trial of endoscopic biliary sphincterotomy using pure-cut versus combined cut and coagulation waveforms. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2005; 3: 1029-1033 DOI: 10.1016/s1542-3565(05)00528-8. (PMID: 16234050)
• 28 Tsang HC, Lam CS, Chu PW. et al. A randomized controlled trial of auricular transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation for managing posthysterectomy pain. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med 2011; 2011: 276769 DOI: 10.1155/2011/276769. (PMID: 21716709)
• 29 Freeman ML, Nelson DB, Sherman S. et al. Complications of endoscopic biliary sphincterotomy. N Engl J Med 1996; 335: 909-918 DOI: 10.1056/NEJM199609263351301. (PMID: 8782497)
• 30 Köksal AŞ, Eminler AT, Parlak E. Biliary endoscopic sphincterotomy: Techniques and complications. World J Clin Cases 2018; 6: 1073-1086 DOI: 10.12998/wjcc.v6.i16.1073. (PMID: 30613665)
• 31 Testoni PA, Mariani A, Aabakken L. et al. Papillary cannulation and sphincterotomy techniques at ERCP: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Clinical Guideline. Endoscopy 2016; 48: 657-683 DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-108641. (PMID: 27299638)
• 32 Kim HJ, Kim MH, Kim DI. et al. Endoscopic hemostasis in sphincterotomy-induced hemorrhage: its efficacy and safety. Endoscopy 1999; 31: 431-436 DOI: 10.1055/s-1999-42. (PMID: 10494680)
• 33 Serrano JPR, de Moura DTH, Bernardo WM. et al. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs versus placebo for post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Endosc Int Open 2019; 7: E477-E486 DOI: 10.1055/a-0862-0215. (PMID: 30957004)
• 34 Akshintala VS, Sperna Weiland CJ, Bhullar FA. et al. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, intravenous fluids, pancreatic stents, or their combinations for the prevention of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol 2021; 6: 733-742 DOI: 10.1016/S2468-1253(21)00170-9. (PMID: 34214449)
• 35 Thanage R, Jain S, Chandnani S. et al. Is the combination of rectal diclofenac and intravenous ringer lactate superior to individual therapy for prophylaxis of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis: A prospective, open-label, single-center randomized trial. Pancreas 2021; 50: 1236-1342 DOI: 10.1097/MPA.0000000000001903. (PMID: 34714289)
• 36 Marín-Gabriel JC, Romito R, Guarner-Argente C. et al. Use of electrosurgical units in the endoscopic resection of gastrointestinal tumors. Gastroenterol Hepatol 2019; 42: 512-523 DOI: 10.1016/j.gastrohep.2019.04.003. (PMID: 31326105)
• 37 Puig I, Calvet X, Baylina M. et al. How and when should NSAIDs be used for preventing post-ERCP pancreatitis? A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One 2014; 9: e92922
• 38 Chandrasekhara V, Khashab MA, Muthusamy VR. et al. Adverse events associated with ERCP. Gastrointest Endosc 2017; 85: 32-47
• 39 Jena A, Jain S, Sundaram S. et al. Electrosurgical unit in GI endoscopy: the proper settings for practice. Expert Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 2023; 17: 825-835 DOI: 10.1080/17474124.2023.2242243. (PMID: 37497836)
• 40 Sterne JAC, Savović J, Page MJ. et al. RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 2019; 366: l4898 DOI: 10.1136/bmj.l4898. (PMID: 31462531)