ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND AND AIM: The utility of a passive bending colonoscope (PBCS) in ERCP for patients with surgically altered anatomy has not been established. This study compared the outcome of PBCS-ERCP and balloon-assisted enteroscope (BAE)-ERCP. METHODS: This multicenter observational study included 343 patients with surgically altered anatomy who underwent ERCP. Among these, 110 underwent PBCS-ERCP and 233 underwent BAE-ERCP. Propensity score matching was applied, and a final cohort of 210 (105 in each group) with well-balanced backgrounds was analyzed. The primary outcome was the success rate of reaching anastomosis or ampulla of Vater. Secondary endpoints included the cannulation success rate, completion rate, procedure time (to reach, cannulate, complete), and adverse events. RESULTS: The success rate for reaching the target was 91.4% (96/105) with PBCS and 90.5% (95/105) with BAE (odds ratio [95% CI] 1.12, [0.44-2.89], P = 0.809). The mean time required to reach the target was significantly shorter in PBCS: 10.04 min (SD, 9.62) with PBCS versus 18.77 min (SD, 13.21) with BAE (P < 0.001). There were no differences in the success of cannulation or procedure completion, although the required times for cannulation and procedure completion were significantly shorter in PBCS. The incidence of adverse events was significantly higher in BAE (19.0%) than in PBCS (4.8%; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with surgically altered anatomy, PBCS-ERCP showed promising results with shorter time to reach, cannulate, and a lower incidence of adverse events compared with BAE-ERCP. The success rate of reaching was favorable through PBCS compared with BAE. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: UMIN000045546.
