Retrospective Study
Copyright ©The Author(s) 2021.
World J Clin Cases. Jun 16, 2021; 9(17): 4166-4177
Published online Jun 16, 2021. doi: 10.12998/wjcc.v9.i17.4166
Table 1 Baseline characteristics between the experienced and less experienced endoscopists

Total, n = 542, (%)
Experienced, n = 237, (%)
Less-experienced, n = 305, (%)
P value
Age (yr)67.8 ± 13.466.6 ± 14.268.7 ± 12.60.070
Male (%)307 (56.6)129 (54.4)178 (58.4)0.361
Periampullary diverticulum163 (30.1)81 (34.2)82 (26.9)0.067
Ampulla configurations0.224
Non-prominent0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)
Prominent455 (83.9)205 (86.5)250 (82.0)
Bulging65 (12.0)25 (10.5)0 (13.1)
Distorted15 (2.8)3 (1.3)12 (3.9)
Hook-nose shape7 (1.3)4 (1.7)3 (1.0)
Malignancy200 (36.9)91 (38.4)109 (35.7)0.525
Benign diseases342 (63.1)146 (61.6)196 (64.3)
Table 2 Baseline characteristics between the conventional technique with sphincterotomy and needle-knife fistulotomy groups

Conventional technique with sphincterotomy, n = 375, (%)
Primary NKF less-experienced, n = 167, (%)

Experienced, n = 147, (%)
Less-experienced, n = 228, (%)
P value
Experienced, n = 90, (%)
Less-experienced, n = 77, (%)
P value
Age (yr)68.8 ± 12.968.7 ± 12.10.96463.1 ± 15.668.7 ± 14.3
Male75 (51.0)130 (57.0)0.25654 (60.0)48 (62.3)0.759
Periampullary diverticulum52 (35.4)68 (29.8)0.26229 (32.2)14 (18.2)0.039a
Ampulla configurations0.6250.265
Non-prominent0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)
Prominent136 (92.5)205 (89.9)69 (76.7)54 (70.1)
Bulging8 (5.4)19 (8.3)17 (18.9)16 (20.8)
Distorted2 (1.4)3 (1.3)1 (1.1)5 (6.50)
Hook-nose shape1 (0.7)1 (0.4)3 (3.3)2 (2.6)
Malignancy58 (39.5)80 (35.1)0.39333 (36.7)29 (37.7)0.895
Benign diseases89 (60.5)148 (64.9)57 (63.3)48 (62.3)
Table 3 Compared results between the experienced and less-experienced endoscopists in each primary cannulation technique

Conventional technique with sphincterotomy
NKF

Experienced (n = 147) (%)
Less-experienced (n = 228) (%)
P value
Experienced (n = 90) (%)
Less-experienced (n = 77) (%)
P value
Success rate361/375 (96.3)161/167 (96.4)0.936
144/147 (98.0)217/228 (95.2)0.16688/90 (97.8)73/77 (94.8)0.306
Cannulation time (min)4.8 ± 3.54.8 ± 3.20.951
5.1 ± 3.54.6 ± 3.60.2004.2 ± 3.15.5 ± 3.10.010a
Total procedure time (min)17.2 ± 9.215.2 ± 8.20.019a
17.6 ± 9.616.9 ± 8.90.49014.9 ± 8.415.6 ± 8.00.598
Post-ERCP pancreatitis25 (6.7)4 (2.4)0.040a
5 (3.4)20 (8.9)0.039a1 (1.1)3 (3.9)0.243
Hyperamylasemia52 (14.0)13 (7.8)0.041a
15 (10.2)37 (16.4)0.0905 (5.6)9 (11.7)0.156
Bleeding10 (2.7)6 (3.6)0.568
2 (1.4)8 (3.6)0.2022 (2.2)4 (5.2)0.306
Perforation1 (0.3)0 (0)0.505
0 (0)1 (0.4)0.4230 (0)0 (0)NA
Table 4 Clinical factors associated with post endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis in conventional technique with sphincterotomy and needle-knife fistulotomy group

Conventional technique with sphincterotomy

NKF


Total
With PEP
Without PEP
P value

Odd ratio (95%CI)
Total
With PEP
Without PEP
P value

Odd ratio (95%CI)

n = 375, (%)
n = 25, (%)
n = 350, (%)
Uni-
Multi-
n = 167, (%)
n = 4, (%)
n = 163, (%)
Uni-
Multi-
Age (yr)68.7 ± 12.465.6 ± 12.569.0 ± 12.40.1940.1260.98(0.94-1.01)65.7 ± 15.369.8 ± 11.965.6 ± 15.30.593-
Male (%)205 (54.7)12 (48.0)193 (55.1)0.490102 (61.1)2 (50.0)100 (61.3)0.648-
Periampullary diverticulum120 (32.0)8 (32.0)112 (32.0)0.99943 (25.7)1 (25.0)42 (25.8)0.973-
Malignancy138 (36.8)9 (36.0)129 (36.9)0.93262 (37.1)3 (75.0)59 (36.2)0.1140.1654.74(0.41-54.8)
Benign diseases237 (63.2)16 (64.0)221 (63.1)-105 (62.9)1 (25.0)104 (63.8)--
Less-experienced endoscopist228 (60.8)20 (80.0)208 (59.4)0.044a0.037a2.94(1.07-8.10)77 (46.1)3 (75.0)74 (45.4)0.2430.1106.40 (0.45-90.6)
Pancreatic duct stent72 (19.2)4 (16.0)68 (19.4)0.6750 (0.0)0 (0.0)0 (0.0)--
Cannulation time (min)4.8 ± 3.55.3 ± 3.54.7 ± 3.50.4314.8 ± 3.28.8 ± 1.74.7 ± 3.10.010a0.9450.99 (0.75-1.31)
Total procedure time (min)17.2 ± 9.221.0 ± 8.816.9 ± 9.20.031a0.026a1.04 (1.01-1.08)15.2 ± 8.230.0 ± 9.314.8 ± 7.90.000a0.004a1.14 (1.04-1.25)