ABSTRACT
Background@#/Aim: Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) training requires varying degrees of staff assistance regarding operation of the fluoroscopy machine via a foot pedal. Efficiency is important to acquire during this training due to radiation risks. In this study, we evaluate the effect of controlling endoscopy and fluoroscopy unit on duct cannulation rates (CRs) and total fluoroscopy time (FT) for fellows in training. @*Methods@#204 patients undergoing ERCP were randomized to one of two groups: 1) “Endoscopist Driven” group in which the endoscopist controlled the foot pedal for fluoroscopy, and 2) “Assistant Driven” group in which attending or fellow controlled the foot pedal while the other team member controlled the endoscope. Various measures including selective duct CR and total FT were recorded. @*Results@#There was no significant difference in mean procedure duration between the two groups (32 minutes vs. 33 minutes, p=0.70). There was also no statistically significant difference in CR (83.7% vs. 77.4%, p=0.25) or FT (3.27 minutes vs. 3.54 minutes, p=0.48). @*Conclusions@#ERCP is a technically challenging procedure which requires extensive supervision. This study demonstrates that CR and FT are not affected by who controls the fluoroscopy.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND/AIMS: Differentially diagnosing focal-type autoimmune pancreatitis (f-AIP) and pancreatic cancer (PC) is challenging. Contrast-enhanced harmonic endoscopic ultrasound (CEH-EUS) may provide information for differentiating pancreatic masses. In this study, we evaluated the usefulness of CEH-EUS in differentiating f-AIP from PC. METHODS: Data were collected prospectively and analyzed on patients who underwent CEH-EUS between May 2014 and May 2015. Eighty consecutive patients were diagnosed with f-AIP or PC. PC and f-AIP were compared for enhancement intensity, contrast agent distribution, and internal vasculature. RESULTS: The study group comprised 53 PC patients and 27 f-AIP patients (17 with type-1 AIP [15 definite and two probable], two with probable type-2 AIP, and eight with AIP, not otherwise specified). Hyper- to iso-enhancement in the arterial phase (f-AIP, 89% vs PC, 13%; p < 0.05), homogeneous contrast agent distribution (f-AIP, 81% vs PC, 17%; p < 0.05), and absent irregular internal vessels (f-AIP, 85% vs PC, 30%; p < 0.05) were observed more frequently in the f-AIP group. The combination of CEH-EUS and enhancement intensity, absent irregular internal vessels improved the specificity (94%) in differentiating f-AIP from PC. CONCLUSIONS: CEH-EUS may be a useful noninvasive modality for differentially diagnosing f-AIP and PC. Combined CEH-EUS findings could improve the specificity of CEH-EUS in differentiating f-AIP from PC.