摘要
AIM: To investigate if transnasal endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (n-ERCP) using an ultrathin forward-viewing scope may overcome the disadvantages of conventional oral ERCP (o-ERCP) related to the large- caliber side-viewing duodenoscope. METHODS: The study involved 50 patients in whom 25 cases each were assigned to the o-ERCP and n-ERCP groups. We compared the requirements of esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) prior to ERCP, rates and times required for successful cannulation into the pancreatobiliary ducts, incidence of post-procedure hyperamylasemia, cardiovascular parameters during the procedure, the dose of a sedative drug, and successful rates of endoscopic naso-biliary drainage (ENBD). RESULTS: Screening gastrointestinal observations were easily performed by the forward-viewing scope and thus no prior EGD was required in the n-ERCP group. There was no significant difference in the rates or times for cannulation, or incidence of hyperamylasemia between the groups. However, the cannulation was relatively difficult in n-ERCP when the scope appeared U-shape under fluoroscopy. Increments of blood pressure and the amount of a sedative drug were significantly lower in the n-ERCP group. ENBD was successfully performed succeeding to the n-ERCP in which mouth-to-nose transfer of the drainage tube was not required. CONCLUSION: n-ERCP is likely a well-tolerable methodwith less cardiovascular stress and no need of prior EGD or mouth-to-nose transfer of the ENBD tube. However, a deliberate application is needed since its performance is difficult in some cases and is not feasible for some endoscopic treatments such as stenting.
AIM： To investigate if transnasal endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography （n-ERCP） using an ultrathin forward-viewing scope may overcome the disadvantages of conventional oral ERCP （o-ERCP） related to the largecaliber side-viewing duodenoscope. METHODS： The study involved 50 patients in whom 25 cases each were assigned to the o-ERCP and n-ERCP groups. We compared the requirements of esophagogastroduodenoscopy （EGD） prior to ERCP, rates and times required for successful cannulation into the pancreatobiliary ducts, incidence of post-procedure hyperamylasemia, cardiovascular parameters during the procedure, the dose of a sedative drug, and successful rates of endoscopic naso-biliary drainage （ENBD）. RESULTS： Screening gastrointestinal observations were easily performed by the forward-viewing scope and thus no prior EGD was required in the n-ERCP group. There was no significant difference in the rates or times for cannulation, or incidence of hyperamylasemia between the groups. However, the cannulation was relatively difficult in n-ERCP when the scope appeared U-shape under fluoroscopy. Increments of blood pressure and the amount of a sedative drug were significantly lower in the n-ERCP group. ENBD was successfully performed succeeding to the n-ERCP in which mouth-to-nose transfer of the drainage tube was not required. CONCLUSION： n-ERCP is likely a well-tolerable methodwith less cardiovascular stress and no need of prior EGD or mouth-to-nose transfer of the ENBD tube. However, a deliberate application is needed since its performance is difficult in some cases and is not feasible for some endoscopic treatments such as stenting.
