Research Article

Visual characteristics of the papilla to estimate cannulation of the common bile duct – a pilot study

Ina Zuber-Jerger, Maria Cornelia Gelbmann, Frank Kullmann

Objectives: Performance of endoscopic retrograde cholangiography (ERC) depends mainly on the skills of the examiner, but also on anatomical variants. The aim of the study was to investigate patient-, and papilla-related factors for the successful selective cannulation of the common bile duct (CBD). Patients and methods: 50 patients with a papilla with no prior sphincterotomy needing an ERC were enrolled. From a standardized description given by the endoscopist, criteria to characterize the papilla were analyzed. Results: Success was achieved in 92%.  Cannulation time was 460 +/- 561 seconds on average. 70% of the papillae were mastered in 300 seconds or less. Concordance between endoscopists concerning descriptive variables was between 86% and 100%. The judgment of the endoscopist concerning expected difficulty was not significantly related to success, demonstrating the necessity of predictive parameters. Typical position of the duodenoscope and performance of precut were significantly related to success. The joint presence of a visible orifice and a typical position of the duodenoscope had a positive predictive value (PPV) of 96%. Conclusions: Endoscopists can rely on the joint presence of a visible orifice of the papilla and a typical position of the duodenoscope in X-ray to predict success of ERC. (Zuber-Jerger I, Gelbmann CM, Kullmann F. Visual characteristics of the papilla to estimate cannulation of the common bile duct – a pilot study. North Am J Med Sci 2009; 1: 66-73).

Key words: Endoscopic retrograde cholangiography, common bile duct, papilla.

Correspondence to: Dr. Ina Zuber-Jerger, Hospital of Internal Medicine I, University Medical Center of Regensburg, 93042 Regensburg, Germany. Tel: 49 9419447003,Fax: 49 9419447036. Email: ina.zuber-jerger@klinik.uni-regensburg.de

Introduction

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiography is an important tool in diagnosis and therapy of benign and malignant disorders of the biliary tree. The selective cannulation of the common bile duct is a difficult procedure, the success of which mainly depends on the skills of the examiner but also on the anatomical variants and the underlying illnesses.

Since selective cannulation of the common bile duct can be difficult, multiple strategies have been developed to overcome the situation: different papillotome instead of the standard catheter; precut papillotomy using precut needle knifes or precut papillotome; transpancreatic papillary septotomy; and stenting of the pancreatic duct [1-6]. Complicated cannulation is discussed as a relevant determinant for post-ERCP-pancreatitis [7, 8, 9].  A number of pharmacological and mechanical strategies have been devised to avoid this severe complication [10-23]. Diclofenac reduced the incidence of post-ERCP-pancreatitis in a Scottish cohort [23]. Other drugs have not been proven valid: The results of giving allopurinol, ulinastatin, somatostatin, beta-carotene, lidocaine, heparin, NK 1 receptor antagonist, corticosteroids and interleukin 10 to avoid post-ERCP-pancreatitis were disappointing [12-22]. There are more promising results for the placement of a protective pancreas stent [10].

Though a lot of strategies have been developed to facilitate selective cannulation of the common bile duct and to prevent the major complication of difficult ERCPs, little is known about the factors responsible for the difficulty to gain access to the common bile duct. Many known fundamental factors have been passed along from trainers to trainee over the years which are probably correct but have not been validated formally in a study. There is common agreement concerning some factors that are considered difficult for the accessibility of a papilla. Though discussed controversially, duodenal diverticula are considered such a factor, for example [3, 24].

Thus the aim of our study was, to identify relevant patient- and papilla-related factors facilitating or complicating access to the common bile duct.  

Patients and Methods

Design of the study, patients and data collection
50 (27 female, 23 male) consecutive adults with a mean age of 62.76±13.35 (min 32, max 83) were included in the pilot study performed in 2005 in the endoscopy unit of the University Hospital of Regensburg. Patients were eligible for the study if ERCP during regular daily period of service was indicated and there was no prior sphincterotomy of the papilla. Patients with an altered anatomical way to the papilla due to surgery such as status after Billroth II etc. were excluded.

An attempt was either the successful cannulation of the CBD or an unsuccessful procedure. Cannulation technique was not standardized. It was the examiner’s choice to begin with standard catheter (6 French, not tapered) or papillotome (triple lumen) with a terumo wire, but the examiner was forced to use both techniques before the procedure was unsuccessfully terminated. The decision to perform a precut was left to the examiner. After thirty minutes of unsuccessful maneuvers the first attempt was terminated. The duration of the second attempt was not limited. Its duration was left to the decision of the examiner.

Basic patient characteristics (age, gender, height, weight, BMI, prior surgery and indication for ERCP) were collected in a database, the access to which was restricted to the authorized physician. Informed consent was obtained from the patients whose data were collected.

Basic papilla characteristics were documented in the same database. The papilla was photographed at the beginning of the examination. Common bile duct and pancreatic duct were documented by X-ray if contrasted. Cannulation time (interval between reaching ERCP-position after identification of papilla major and selective cannulation of the common bile duct), the number of maneuvers with the standard catheter and/or the papillotome were documented by the endoscopy nurse. The necessity of a precut was documented, too. If necessary precut was performed starting from the papillary orifice cutting upward.

The endoscopists had to give a detailed description of the papilla. From this description the following criteria to characterize the local situation in front of the papilla were developed: size of the papilla (small/big) (Fig. 1) and of the roof of the papilla (small/big) (Fig. 1); visibility of the orifice of the papilla (yes/no) (Figs. 1, 2); hardness, when touched with the catheter (yes/no); position of the papilla in duodenum in X-ray (typical/atypical); position of the duodenoscope (typical/atypical); stability of the duodenoscope in position (stable/unstable); bleeding of the papilla when touched (yes/no); swelling of the papilla when touched (yes/no); morphology of the papilla (healthy/diseased) (Figs. 1, 2); visibility of bile stream (yes/no); the presence of diverticula (yes/no) and duodenitis (yes/no).

Papilla was measured with an open biopsy forceps with a diameter of 5 mm. A papilla with a diameter of less than 5 mm was considered small, otherwise big. The roof of the papilla was described as small, when it was less than 5 mm, otherwise big.

The position of the papilla in duodenum was considered atypical, if it was hidden between swollen folds or displaced by diverticula, tumor or lipoma.

The parameter “position of duodenoscope” was defined by measuring the angle described in figure 3. The position of the duodenoscope was described as typical, if it was placed straight and the angle was between 90 and 135 degree.   

The procedures were performed by endoscopists with a different level of training: two advanced endoscopists (experience in endoscopy more than eight years, ERCP more than five years) and one endoscopist in training (experience in endoscopy more than five years, ERCP one year). To test the endoscopists’ ability to identify a difficult papilla, the examiner was asked whether it would be easy or difficult after having placed the duodenoscope and having inspected the papilla before the first maneuver with the catheter.

The following classification of outcomes was used. Success and failure were defined in terms of the selective cannulation of the common bile duct during an attempt. If necessary, two attempts were made. Successful cannulation of the CBD in the first (second) attempt was defined as primary (secondary) success. In accordance, procedures were labeled as primary (secondary) failures in the first (second) attempt. Our primary endpoint was successful cannulation of the CBD in an attempt (“success/failure”). Our final endpoint was “final success/final failure” defined as successful cannulation of the CBD either in the first or in the second attempt, defined as “final success” or two unsuccessful procedures defined as “final failure” (Fig. 4).

Statistical analysis

For analyses, we used the statistics program SPSS (Chicago, Illinois). In order to check for significant influences of the categorical variables on our categorical outcome variable (“success” versus “failure”) we used the chi squared test employing Yates' correction for continuity where appropriate. To compare the medians between two different groups the Mann Whitney test was used. Key variables provided by the bivariate analysis were further subjected to logistic regression analysis (SPSS). The logistic regression analyses were performed in a multivariate setting to measure the independent effects of factors after adjusting for the contributions of each of the other factors in the models. This investigation provided models predicting success and precut. A p-value of < 0.05 was defined as significant. The p-values for the bivariate statistical tests are not corrected for multiple testing, because those tests were taken as exploratory. The subsequent multivariate logistic regression analyses were considered the main definitive result as they determined those variables independently associated with the outcomes of interest, after adjusting for the contributions of the other variables. Correction by Bonferroni´s method was applied.

Results

A total of 50 patients with native papilla and normal anatomical way to the papilla were examined in two months. Patients’ characteristics including sex, age, weight, height, BMI, indications for ERCP and diagnosis are given in table 1. From 55 procedures 45 (82%) were successful and 10 (18%) failed.

Table 1 Patients´ characteristics, indications and diagnosis (n = 50)

CBD: common bile duct; BMI: body mass index. * It must be considered that some procedures were done because of more than one indication, e.g. painless jaundice and dilatation of common bile duct in sonography. As well some procedures lead to more than one diagnosis, e.g. cholecystolithiasis and choledocholithiasis or cholangitis and stenosis of the common bile duct.

Primary success was achieved in 44 patients (88%). Five patients were examined twice by two different endoscopists (Table 2). One patient with primary sclerosing cholangitis and a native papilla was successfully examined twice due to recurrent intrahepatic strictures (Table 2, patient D). Secondary success after primary failure was achieved in two patients (4%) (Table 2, patient C, E). Final success was thus achieved in 46 patients (92%). Failure occurred in four patients (8%). Two of these patients were examined once (primary failure) (4%) and two twice (primary, secondary and final failure) (4%) (Table 2, patient A, B).

In ten procedures only the papillotome was used. In 13 procedures only the standard catheter was used. In 32 procedures both cannulation techniques were used.

Precut was needed in eight examinations (15%) and in seven patients (14%). Twice precut was performed in the first attempt leading to primary success and once in the second attempt leading to secondary success. Thrice precut was performed during the first attempt leading to secondary success after primary failure. Once precut was performed unsuccessfully during the first and the second attempt leading to final failure. In the seven patients with precut, final failure occurred once (14%) and final success six fold (86%).

The two groups with success and failure were compared using the criteria developed to characterize the papilla and by means of patient- and endoscopist-related criteria (Table 3). Judgment of the advanced endoscopist concerning expected difficulty was weakly and judgment of the trainee was not significantly related to success. But the determinants “position of the duodenoscope” and “precut” were found to differ significantly between the two groups (Table 3). Correction by Bonferroni's method would not have removed significance from any of the bivariate test results.

Logistic regression models were created in order to predict successful cannulation. Our preferred model is shown in table 4. The joint presence of a typical position of the duodenoscope and a visible orifice predicts success with a positive predictive value (PPV) of 96%. These predictive models were chosen to include non-significant factors in the multivariate logistic regression analyses to better gauge the effect of the significant factor (position of the duodenoscope) after adjusting for the contributions of the included non-significant factors and to increase the predictive accuracy of the models.

Concordance between endoscopists concerning variables was between 86% and 100% (Table 2). Discordant factors were the performance of precut, the judgment of the endoscopist and the ability of the second examiner to reach a stable position of the duodenoscope (Table 2).

Cannulation time of the common bile duct ranged from 10 s to 1500 s and was 460 +/- 561 s on average.

Figure 5 shows that 70% of successful selective cannulations of the common bile duct were achieved within 300 s or less. 80% were achieved in up to 900 s. Precut was usually performed after unsuccessful maneuvers for 1500 s (one exception).

The choice of the cannulation technique (standard catheter alone; papillotome alone; or a combination of both) did not have significant association as a predictive value for success or failure.

Table 3 Comparison of the two patient groups with successful (success) or failed (failure) selective intubation of the common bile duct.

SD: standard deviation; AE: advanced endoscopist; ET: endoscopist in training.

Note: As indicated in the text, five patients were examined twice. Thus, the total number of examinations is higher than the number of patients documented in Table 1. The total number of examinations done by trainee and advanced endoscopist are 54, because a second advanced endoscopist did the second examination after the primary failure of the advanced endoscopist.

Discussion

Successful performance of diagnostic and therapeutic endoscopic retrograde cholangiography (ERC) requires skillful use of the duodenoscope and accessories. Prospective evaluation of ERC-training demonstrates a learning curve [25]. The 85% level of selective cannulation is reached for the common bile duct after 100 procedures [25]. Based on a questionnaire filled in by 69 American gastroenterology fellows, a cannulation rate of 80% was estimated after 180 ERCPs [26]. The same study showed that the majority of graduating fellows do not achieve this success rate during training although they intend to perform unsupervised ERCP afterwards. In Europe, the situation is comparable. So there is a necessity to improve ERCP training in Europe and in the US. Since there is not an unlimited number of procedures, selection of papillae for different states of training may help to achieve better training results and optimize organization of endoscopy units.

Although many publications in the last years focused on strategies facilitating selective cannulation of the common bile duct and on prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis [1-23, 27, 28], nothing has been published so far describing patient- and papilla-related factors that might influence the accessibility of the common bile duct. Even the important prospective training studies mentioned above [25, 26] did not differentiate between the “easy” and the “difficult” papilla. Our hypothesis was that variables related to the anatomy of the patient and the papilla can be used to predict success or failure. Comparable attempts have already been made in colonoscopy. For example, cecal cannulation is prolonged in females and in patients with lower body mass index [29, 30, 31].

Our bivariate analysis showed that the judgment of the endoscopist after placing the duodenoscope in the duodenum and inspecting the papilla but before any maneuver with the catheter was done, was not related to success. This confirms our hypothesis that objective patient-related and papilla-related variables are necessary to predict successful selective cannulation of the common bile duct.

It turned out that the performance of precut and the typical position of the duodenoscope was significantly related to success. Since it was our aim to find a predictive model with variables that can be determined within the first minute of the examination, the performance of precut – usually done after 25 minutes – was not considered a helpful parameter. The combination of a visible orifice and a typical position of the duodenoscope turned out to be the best model with a PPV of 96%.

Since there is no evidence in the literature [3, 24] but common sense that duodenal diverticula complicate the access to the common bile duct, we checked our data and did not find a direct association between failure and the presence of duodenal diverticula. But this might be due to the limited number of patients included in the study.

Another factor influencing success is the selection of the technique [5, 27, 28]. With standard catheters selective bile duct cannulation can be routinely achieved in most but not in all cases. Repeated unsuccessful attempts may result in trauma of the papilla. Sphincterotomes can be used as devices to perform selective cannulation as well. A study from Schwacha et al. reported a primary success rate of 85% with the papillotome compared with 62% using the standard catheter [27]. Complication rates did not differ. The authors considered the stiffness of the papillotome allowing better directional control in cases of difficult cannulation but did not specify the factors relevant for difficult cannulation. Goldberg et al. report a success rate of 97.4% that was achieved by means of a pancreatic stent to facilitate the access to the common bile duct [5]. In our cohort a comparison of standard catheter and papillotome showed no influence on success or failure rates. But since there was no standardized protocol to cannulate we consider this data not really interpretable.

Little is published about the time needed for cannulation of the common bile duct. In a study comparing precut papillotomy and persistent maneuvers with the standard catheter or the papillotome, a cannulation of the bile duct was considered difficult if cannulation was not successful after 12 minutes. After this time, precut was considered [4]. In our cohort, 70% of the successfully intubated common bile ducts without precut were finished after five minutes. To achieve a success rate of 80%, a cannulation time of 15 minutes was necessary. The performance of precut was one of two highly significant variables predicting success. This suggests that precut should be done after 15 minutes. But precut is considered as an independent predictor of post-ERCP pancreatitis [32]. On the other hand, a prolonged difficult cannulation increased the risk of post-ERCP as well [7, 8]. In our cohort there was no complication at all. But since complication rate of precut can be high - between 10% and 20% in the literature [4, 7, 8] precut remains the option of last choice.

The failure rate described in literature varies between 3% [5] and 37% [27, 33]. Our failure rate may have been increased by the developing experience of the trainee. The missing difference between the failure rates of the trainee and the advanced endoscopist is explained by the schedule of the study. Admissions from other hospitals having had unsuccessful ERC by a long-experienced endoscopist were done by the advanced endoscopist, so there was a bias.

In conclusion, our data suggest that the typical position of the duodenoscope is the single most important factor determining success. The combination of two variables – typical position of duodenoscope and visible orifice – has a positive predictive value of 96%. These variables can be evaluated easily at the beginning of the procedure and can be used by the examiner to quickly predict success. This information might help to improve organization in endoscopy units with endoscopists in different states of training. Further studies in a larger collective with a higher interobserver variability should confirm these results.

References

1. Hamda E, Baron T, Simmons D, Petersen BT. A retrospective comparison of outcomes using three different precut needle knife techniques for biliary cannulation. J Clin Gastroenterol 2005;39:717-21.

2. Catalano MF, Linder JD, Geenen JE. Endoscopic transpancreatic papillary septotomy for inaccessible obstructed bile ducts: comparison with standard pre-cut papillotomy. Gastrointest Endosc 2004;60:557-61.

3. Fogel EL, Sherman S, Lehmann GA. Increased selective biliary cannulation rates in the setting of periampullary diverticula: main pancreatic duct stent placement followed by pre-cut biliary sphincterotomy. Gastrointest Endosc 1998;47:396-400.

4. Tang SJ, Haber GB, Kortan P, Zanati S, Cirocco M, Ennis M. Precut papillotomy versus persistence in difficult biliary cannulation: a prospective randomised trial. Endoscopy 2005;37:58-65.

5. Goldberg E, Titus M, Haluszka O, Darwin P. Pancreatic-duct stent placement facilitates difficult common bile duct cannulation. Gastrointest Endosc 2005; 62:592-6.

6. Kaffes AJ, Sriram PV, Rao GV, Santosh D, Reddy DN. Early institution of pre-cutting for difficult biliary cannulation: a prospective study comparing conventional vs. a modified technique. Gastrointest Endosc 2005; 62:669-74.

7. Freeman ML, DiSario JA, Nelson DB, Fennerty MB, Lee JG, Bjorkman DJ, Overby CS, Aas J, Ryan ME, Bochna GS, Shaw MJ, Snady HW, Erickson RV, Moore JP, Roel JP. Risk factors for post-ERCP pancreatitis: a prospective multicenter study. Gastrointest Endosc 2001; 54:425-34.

8. Vandervoort J, Soetikno RM, Tham TC, Wong RC, Ferrari AP Jr, Montes H, Roston AD, Slivka A, Lichtenstein DR, Ruymann FW, Van Dam J, Hughes M, Carr-Locke DL. Risk factors for complications after performance of ERCP. Gastrointest Endosc 2002; 56:652-6.

9. Cheng CL, Sherman S, Watkins JL, Barnett J, Freeman M, Geenen J, Ryan M, Parker H, Frakes JT, Fogel EL, Silverman WB, Dua KS, Aliperti G, Yakshe P, Uzer M, Jones W, Goff J, Lazzell-Pannell L, Rashdan A, Temkit M, Lehman GA. Risk factors for post-ERCP-pancreatitis: a prospective multicenter study. Am J Gastroenterol 2006; 101:139-47.

10. Singh P, Das A, Isenberg G, Wong RC, Sivak MV Jr, Agrawal D, Chak A. Does prophylactic pancreatic stent placement reduce the risk of post-ERCP acute pancreatitis? A meta-analysis of controlled trials. Gastrointest Endosc 2004; 60:544-50.

 11. Freeman ML, Guda NM. Prevention of post-ERCP-pancreatitis: a comprehensive review. Gastrointest Endosc 2004;59:845-64.

12. Katsinelos P, Kountouras J, Chatzis J, Christodoulou K, Paroutoglou G, Mimidis K. High-dose allopurinol for prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis: a prospective randomised double-blind controlled trial. Gastrointest Endosc 2005; 61:407-15.

13. Tsujino T, Komatsu Y, Isayama H, Hirano K, Sasahira N, Yamamoto N, Kohge N, Moriyama N, Suetsugu H, Kawashima K, Komazawa Y, Ishimura N, Ishihara S, Amano Y, Kinoshita Y. Ulinastatin for pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: a randomised controlled trial. Clin Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2005;3:376-83.

14. Andriulli A, Solmi L, Loperfido S, Leo P, Festa V, Belmonte A, Spirito F, Silla M, Forte G, Terruzzi V, Marenco G, Ciliberto E, Sabatino A, Monica F, Magnolia MR, Perri F. Prophylaxis of ERCP-related pancreatitis: a randomized controlled trial of somatostatin and gabexate mesylate. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2004; 2:713-8.

15. Arvanitidis D, Anagnostopoulos GK, Giannopoulos D, Pantes A, Agaritsi R, Margantinis G, Tsiakos S, Sakorafas G, Kostopoulos P. Can somatostatin prevent post-ERCP pancreatitis? Results of a randomized controlled trial. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2004; 19:278-82.

16. Lavy A, Karban A, Suissa A, Yassin K, Hermesh I, Ben-Amotz A. Natural beta-carotene for the prevention of post-ERCP-pancreatitis. Pancreas 2004; 29:45-50.

17. Schwartz JJ, Lew RJ, Ahmad NA, Shah JN, Ginsberg GG, Kochman ML, Brensinger CM, Long WB. The effect of lidocaine sprayed on the major duodenal papilla on the frequency of post-ERCP pancreatitis. Gastrointest Endosc 2004; 59:179-84.

18. Rabenstein T, Fischer B, Wiessner V, Schmidt H, Radespiel-Tröger M, Hochberger J, Mühldorfer S, Nusko G, Messmann H, Schölmerich J, Schulz HJ, Schönekäs H, Hahn EG, Schneider HT. Low molecular weight heparin does not prevent acute post-ERCP pancreatitis. Gastrointest Endosc 2004; 59:606-13.

19. He ZJ, Winston JH, Yusuf TE, Micci MA, Elfert A, Xiao SY, Pasricha PJ. Intraductal administration of an NK 1 receptor antagonist attenuates the inflammatory response to retrograde infusion of radiological contrast in rats: implications for the pathogenesis and prevention of ERCP-induced pancreatitis. Pancreas 2003; 27:13-7.

20. Sherman S, Blaut U, Watkins JL, Barnett J, Freeman M, Geenen J, Ryan M, Parker H, Frakes JT, Fogel EL, Silverman WB, Dua KS, Aliperti G, Yakshe P, Uzer M, Jones W, Goff J, Earle D, Temkit M, Lehman GA. Does prophylactic administration of corticosteroid reduce the risk and severity of post-ERCP pancreatitis: a randomized prospective multicenter study. Gastrointest Endosc 2003; 58:23-9.

21. Manolakopoulos S, Avgerinos A, Vlachogiannakos J, Armonis A, Viazis N, Papadimitriou N, Mathou N, Stefanidis G, Rekoumis G, Vienna E, Tzourmakliotis D, Raptis SA. Octreotide versus hydrocortisone versus placebo in the prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis: a multicenter randomized controlled trial. Gastrointest Endosc 2002;55:470-5.

22. Deviere J, Le Moine O, Van Laethem JL, Eisendrath P, Ghilain A, Severs N, Cohard M. Interleukin 10 reduces the incidence of pancreatitis after therapeutic endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreaticography. Gastroenterology 2001; 120:498-505.

23. Murray B, Carter R, Imrie C, Evans S, O'Suilleabhain C. Diclofenac reduces the incidence of acute pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Gastroenterology 2003; 124:1786-91.

24. Chang-Chien CS. Do juxtapapillary diverticula of the duodenum interfere with cannulation at endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography? A prospective study. Gastrointest. Endosc 1987; 33:298-300.

25. Watkins JL, Etzkorn KP, Wiley TE, DeGuzman L, Harig JM. Assessment of technical competence during ERCP training. Gastrointest Endosc 1996; 44:411-5.

26. Kowalksi T, Kanchana T, Pungpapong S. Perceptions of gatroenterology fellows regarding ERCP competency and training. Gastrointest Endosc 2003; 58:345-9.

27. Schwacha H, Allgaier HP, Deibert P, Olschewski M, Allgaier U, Blum HE. A sphincterotome-based technique for selective transpapillary common bile duct cannulation. Gastrointest Endosc 2000;52:387-91.

28. Cortas GA, Mehta SN, Abraham NS, Barkun AN. Selective cannulation of the common bile duct: a prospective randomized trial comparing standard catheters with sphincterotomes. Gastrointest Endosc 1999;50(6):775-9.

29. Anderson JC, Messina CR, Cohn W, Gottfried E, Ingber S, Bernstein G, Coman E, Polito J. Factors predictive of difficult colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2001; 54:558-62.

30. Zuber-Jerger I, Kullmann F. A prospective study of factors that determine cecal intubation time at colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2006; 63(2):358-9.

31. Bernstein C, Thorn M, Monsees K, Spell R, O'Connor JB. A prospective study of factors that determine cecal intubation time at colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2005; 61:72-5.

32. Masci E, Toti G, Mariani A. Complications of diagnostic and therapeutic ERCP: a prospective multicenter study. Am J Gastroenterol 2001; 96:417-23.

33. Christensen M, Matzen P, Schulze S, Rosenberg J. Complications of ERCP: a prospective study. Gastrointest Endosc 2004; 6:721-31.