Goff Septotomy Is a Safe and Effective Salvage Biliary Access Technique Following Failed Cannulation at ERCP. Digestive diseases and sciences Barakat, M. T., Girotra, M., Huang, R. J., Choudhary, A., Thosani, N. C., Kothari, S., Sethi, S., Banerjee, S. 2020


BACKGROUND: Biliary cannulation is readily achieved in>85% of patients undergoing endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). When standard cannulation techniques fail, salvage techniques utilized include the needle knife precut, double wire technique, and Goff septotomy.METHODS: Records of patients undergoing ERCP from 2005 to 2016 were retrospectively examined using a prospectively maintained endoscopy database. Patients requiring salvage techniques for biliary access were analyzed together with a control sample of 20 randomly selected index ERCPs per study year. Demographic and clinical variables including indications for ERCP, cannulation rates, and adverse events were collected.RESULTS: A total of 7984 patients underwent ERCP from 2005 to 2016. Biliary cannulation was successful in 94.9% of control index ERCPs, 87.2% of patients who underwent Goff septotomy (significantly higher than for all other salvage techniques, p=0.001), 74.5% of patients in the double wire group and 69.6% of patients in the needle knife precut group. Adverse event rates were similar in the Goff septotomy (4.1%) and index ERCP control sample (2.7%) groups. Adverse events were significantly higher in the needle knife group (27.2%) compared with all other groups.CONCLUSIONS: This study represents the largest study to date of Goff septotomy as a salvage biliary access technique. It confirms the efficacy of Goff septotomy and indicates a safety profile similar to standard cannulation techniques and superior to the widely employed needle knife precut sphincterotomy. Our safety and efficacy data suggest that Goff septotomy should be considered as the primary salvage approach for failed cannulation, with needle knife sphincterotomy restricted to Goff septotomy failures.

View details for DOI 10.1007/s10620-020-06124-6

View details for PubMedID 32052216