Double Postbulbar Block in the Prevention of Postmanipulation Pancreatitis

Abstract The problems of preventing postmanipulation pancreatitis (PMP) remain the subject of debate and a lot of research from leading scientific clinics around the world. The article is devoted to the assessment of prevention methods of PMP in patients with lesion of the pancreaticobiliary zone who underwent transpapillary interventions. Aim of the study Evaluation of the effectiveness of the author’s method of preventing PMP.

Material and methods A prospective two-center randomized study included 545 patients treated in the Department of Liver Surgery and General Surgery in 2020–2022, who underwent ERCP and endoscopic papillosphincterotomy. There were 146 (26.8%) male patients, and 399 (73.2%) female patients, aged from 18 to 92 years, the mean age 62.7±7.4 years. Patients were divided into 3 groups according to the method of preventing PMP: in the 1st group, standard drug premedication was supplemented with two postbulbar blocks with a solution of lidocaine 0.5% 10 ml before and after the intervention (RF Patent No. 2779221, 09/05/2022), in the 2nd group standard premedication was combined with placebo was used, and in the comparison group 3 no submucosal injections were performed. The monitoring of clinical manifestations of PMP and the level of amylase was carried out every 12 hours until the parameters normalized. Statistical processing was carried out using program STATISTICA 6.1 for Windows.

Results The frequency of mild pancreatitis, corresponding to the criteria for PMP, did not exceed 18% in groups 1 and 3 (p=0.3408), but was lower with pseudo postbulbar block, 9% (χ2=2.83, р=0.0926), the difference was not statistically significant. The incidence of severe pancreatitis was significantly lower in group 1 with double postbulbar block where there were no cases of pancreatic necrosis among 143 patients (χ2=6.19, р=0.0129). The mortality did not differ significantly among groups (χ²=0.15, р=0.7004). The duration of the hospital period had significant differences between groups (Student’s t-test 1.973, p=0.001). The hospital period with double postbulbar block turned out to be significantly shorter.

Conclusion 1. Double postbulbar blockade significantly reduces the risk of developing severe postmanipulation pancreatitis, regardless of existing risk factors. 2. Double postbulbar block significantly reduces the duration of the hospital period after endoscopic papillosphincterotomy. 3. Pseudo postbulbar block using saline requires further evaluation as a possible way to prevent mild pancreatitis.

1. Kochar B, Akshintala VS, Afghani E, Elmunzer BJ, Kim KJ, Lennon AM, et al. Incidence, severity, and mortality of post­ERCP pancreatitis: a systematic review by using randomized, controlled trials. Gastrointest Endosc. 2015;81(1):143–149.e9. PMID: 25088919 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2014.06.045

2. ASGE Standards of Practice Committee; Buxbaum JL, Freeman M, Amateau SK, Chalhoub JM, Chowdhury A, et al. American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guideline on post­ERCP pancreatitis prevention strategies: methodology and review of evidence. Gastrointest Endosc. 2023;97(2):163–183.e40. PMID: 36517309 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2022.09.011

3. Katsinelos P, Gkagkalis S, Chatzimavroudis G, Beltsis A, Terzoudis S, Zavos C, et al. Comparison of three types of precut technique to achieve common bile duct cannulation: a retrospective analysis of 274 cases. Dig Dis Sci. 2012;57(12):3286–3292. PMID: 22714730 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10620­012­2271­8

4. Rustagi T, Jamidar PA. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP)­related adverse events: post­ERCP pancreatitis. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am. 2015;25(1):107–121. PMID: 25442962 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giec.2014.09.006

5. Johnson KD, Perisetti A, Tharian B, Thandassery R, Jamidar P, Goyal H, et al. Endoscopic Retrograde CholangiopancreatographyRelated Complications and Their Management Strategies: A “Scoping” Literature Review. Dig Dis Sci. 2020;65(2):361–375. PMID: 31792671 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10620­019­05970­3

6. Dahiya DS, Perisetti A, Sharma N, Inamdar S, Goyal H, Singh A, et al. Racial disparities in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) utilization in the United States: are we getting better? Surg Endosc. 2023;37(1):421–433. PMID: 35986223 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464­022­09535­w

7. Saito H, Sakaguchi M, Kadono Y, Shono T, Kamikawa K, Urata A, et al. Disease­Based Risk Stratification of Postendoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography Pancreatitis for Common Bile Duct Stones. Dig Dis Sci. 2022;67(1):305–314. PMID: 33471253 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10620­021­06825­6

8. Pekgöz M. Post­endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis: A systematic review for prevention and treatment. World J Gastroenterol. 2019;25(29):4019–4042. PMID: 31413535 https://doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v25.i29.4019

9. Tryliskyy Y, Bryce GJ. Post­ERCP pancreatitis: Pathophysiology, early identification and risk stratification. Adv Clin Exp Med. 2018;27(1):149– 154. PMID: 29521055 https://doi.org/10.17219/acem/66773

10. Jang DK, Kim J, Paik CN, Kim JW, Lee TH, Jang JY, et al. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography­related adverse events in Korea: A nationwide assessment. United European Gastroenterol J. 2022;10(1):73­79. PMID: 34953054 https://doi.org/10.1002/ueg2.12186

11. Park CH. The Latest Knowledge on Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography­related Pancreatitis. Korean J Gastroenterol. 2022;79(5):195­198. PMID: 35610548 https://doi.org/10.4166/kjg.2022.056

12. Saito H, Koga T, Sakaguchi M, Kadono Y, Kamikawa K, Urata A, et al. Post­endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis in patients with asymptomatic common bile duct stones. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019;34(7):1153–1159. PMID: 30650203 https://doi.org/10.1111/jgh.14604

13. Fujita K, Yazumi S, Matsumoto H, Asada M, Nebiki H, Matsumoto K, et al. Multicenter prospective cohort study of adverse events associated with biliary endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: Incidence of adverse events and preventive measures for post­endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis. Dig Endosc. 2022;34(6):1198– 1204. PMID: 34963021 https://doi.org/10.1111/den.14225

14. Funatsu E, Masuda A, Takenaka M, Nakagawa T, Shiomi H, Yoshinaka H, et al. History of Post­Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography Pancreatitis and Acute Pancreatitis as Risk Factors for Post­ERCP Pancreatitis. J Med Sci. 2017;63(1):E1–E8. PMID: 29434167

15. Tse F, Liu J, Yuan Y, Moayyedi P, Leontiadis GI. Guidewire­assisted cannulation of the common bile duct for the prevention of post endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022;3(3):CD009662. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD009662.pub3

16. Dubravcsik Z, Hritz I, Szepes A, Madácsy L. Prophylactic stents in the prevention of pancreatitis following endoscopic retrograde cholangiop ancreatography. Orv Hetil. 2021;162(1):31–38. PMID: 33388737 https://doi.org/10.1556/650.2021.31934

17. Wang X, Zhao J, Wang L, Ning B, Zeng W, Tao Q, et al. Relationship between papilla­related variables and post endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis: A multicenter, prospective study. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2020;35(12):2184–2191. PMID: 32511794 https://doi.org/10.1111/jgh.15135