Impact of periampullary diverticulum on endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: bridging the gap between fiction and reality
Department of Hepatology and Gastroenterology, National Liver Institute, Menoufia University, Shebeen El-Koum, Menoufia, Egypt
Department of Internal Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Menoufia University, Shebeen El-Koum, Menoufia, Egypt
Abstract
Introduction
Periampullary diverticulum (PAD) is frequently discovered in patients undergoing endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Studies have yielded conflicting results regarding its impact on the technical success of ERCP and post-ERCP complications.
Aim
This study aims to assess the success and safety of ERCP in patients with PAD.
Material and methods
This study included 400 patients who underwent ERCP for common bile duct (CBD) stones. Patients were classified into the PAD group (200 patients) and the non-PAD group (200 patients). Within the PAD group, patients were further subclassified into three types based on the location of the papilla. The study compared the two groups in terms of technical success and ERCP complications.
Results
The success rate of cannulation using selective techniques, needle-knife precut, or trans-pancreatic sphincterotomy was 88%, 7.5%, and 4.5%, respectively, for the PAD group and 81%, 9.5%, and 9.5%, respectively, for the non-PAD group (p = 0.099). Complete CBD clearance was achieved in 85% of the PAD group and 84% of the non-PAD group (p = 0.782). The rate of post-ERCP complications was similar in both groups (p = 0.371). Periampullary diverticulum type 1 was associated with more challenging cannulation (p < 0.001), a lower rate of complete CBD clearance (p < 0.001), and a higher rate of post-ERCP pancreatitis (p = 0.002) compared to other types.
Conclusions
The presence of PAD does not hinder the technical success of ERCP and is not associated with a higher frequency of post-ERCP complications.
Untitled section
Keywords: periampullary diverticulum (PAD), endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), common bile duct (CBD) stones
Article notes
Untitled section
Received 2023 Aug 3; Accepted 2023 Nov 27; Issue date 2024.
Introduction
Periampullary diverticulum (PAD) refers to an outpouching of duodenal mucosa or submucosa, typically caused by a defect in the muscular layer, and it occurs within 2–3 cm of the major papilla [1, 2]. It is usually discovered incidentally during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in 3–32% of patients [3–5]. Studies have shown that PAD is less prevalent in patients under 40 years of age, with its incidence increasing with age [4, 6, 7].
The formation of PAD is associated with the progression of duodenal dysmotility, which is caused by high intraduodenal pressure and the progressive weakening of the intestinal smooth muscle [8]. Although PAD is often asymptomatic [4, 9], it can lead to sphincter of Oddi dysfunction (SOD), mechanical compression of the common bile duct (CBD), impaired biliary drainage, and the development of CBD stones, gallstones, pancreatitis, and acute cholangitis [2, 4, 10]. In rare cases, it may also lead to bleeding, perforation, and even cancer [11].
Periampullary diverticulum can be subclassified based on the location of the papilla. Boix et al. classified it into three groups: type I when the papilla is inside the diverticulum, type II when it is at the edge of the diverticulum, and type III when it is outside the diverticulum [12]. Panteris et al. simplified the classification into two groups: type A when the papilla is on the edge or within 2 cm of the edge of the diverticulum (types II and III), and type B when it is inside the diverticulum or between two adjacent diverticula (type I) [13].
The impact of PAD on ERCP remains controversial, with some studies indicating no effect on success rates [6, 14], while others suggest that it may increase the difficulty of ERCP and the risk of complications [5, 9]. Further studies are needed to determine the full extent of PAD’S influence on ERCP.
Material and methods
Patients and study design
This study enrolled 400 male and female patients aged 18 years and above who underwent therapeutic ERCP for CBD stones at the National Liver Institute (NLI), Menoufia University, between October 2020 and September 2022. The presence of CBD stones was confirmed through abdominal computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP). Exclusion criteria included patients under 18 years of age, a history of previous endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST), prior gastrointestinal tract (GIT) surgery, severe bleeding disorders, or concomitant pancreatic or biliary malignancies.
At the outset of the study, patient demographics and characteristics were recorded. All patients underwent comprehensive physical examinations, vital signs assessments, and a series of tests including complete blood count, liver and kidney function tests, amylase, lipase, electrocardiogram, abdominal ultrasound, and abdominal CT or MRCP.
Patients were categorized into two groups: the PAD group (comprising 200 patients with PAD detected during ERCP) and the non-PAD group (consisting of 200 patients without PAD detected during ERCP). The PAD group was further divided into three types based on the location of the major papilla: type 1 (major papilla inside PAD – 81 patients), type 2 (major papilla at the edge of PAD – 66 patients), and type 3 (major papilla outside of PAD – 53 patients).
Methods and procedures
All ERCP procedures were performed by highly experienced endoscopists using standard side-viewing duodenoscopes (Pentax EPK-i5000). In our center we rely on good hydration rather than anti-inflammatory suppositories as a preventive measure for pancreatitis. Conventional selective cannulation was attempted using a cutting guide wire. In cases where selective cannulation failed, procedures such as precut or trans-pancreatic sphincterotomy with coagulation were performed. After cannulation of the CBD and cholangiography, EST alone or small EST combined with endoscopic papillary balloon dilation (EPBD) was carried out based on the number and diameter of stones, the position of the papilla, and the length of the side. Following stone removal, balloon cholangiography was performed to confirm the complete removal of stones.
Data recorded included the presence of PAD, the location of the papilla relative to PAD, CBD diameter, number and diameter of CBD stones, method of cannulation, procedure time, and the success rate of CBD clearance.
After the procedures, all patients were monitored for post-ERCP complications, such as bleeding, pancreatitis, cholangitis, or perforation.
Study outcomes
The primary endpoint of this study was to investigate the impact of PAD on technical success, the rate of complications, and procedure time in therapeutic ERCP. The secondary endpoint was to assess the influence of the type of PAD on these parameters.
All cases with unsuccessful cannulation by ERCP were done by an endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) guided transmural biliary approach and successfully managed.
Statistical analysis
Data were entered into a computer and analyzed using IBM SPSS software package version 20.0 (Armonk, NY: IBM Corp). Categorical data were presented as numbers and percentages. The χ2 test was used to investigate associations between categorical variables, with Monte Carlo correction applied when expected cell counts were less than 5. For continuous data, normality was assessed using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. Normally distributed quantitative variables were expressed as a range (minimum and maximum), mean, standard deviation, and median. Student’s t-test was employed to compare two groups, and the one-way ANOVA test was used for comparing the three studied groups. For non-normally distributed quantitative variables, the Mann-Whitney test and Kruskal-Wallis test were used to compare two groups and different groups, respectively. The significance level was set at 5%.
Results
Baseline characteristics of patients
The study included 400 patients, with 200 in the PAD group (group 1) and 200 in the non-PAD group (group 2). In the PAD group, there were 127 (63.5%) males and 73 (36.5%) females, with a mean age of 59.2 ±6.6 years. In the non-PAD group, there were 124 (62%) males and 76 (38%) females, with a mean age of 58.3 ±6.9 years. The study found no significant differences between the PAD and non-PAD groups regarding age (p = 0.185) or sex (p = 0.756) (Table I).
| Category | Group 1 (n = 200) | Group 2 (n = 200) | Test of significance | P-value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age [years] | |||||
| Mean ± SD | 59.2 ±6.6 | 58.3 ±6.9 | t = 1.327 | 0.185 | |
| Median (min.–max.) | 59 (44–76) | 58 (40–79) | |||
| Sex, n (%) | |||||
| Male | 127 (63.5) | 124 (62) | χ2 = 0.096 | 0.756 | |
| Female | 73 (36.5) | 76 (38) | |||
| DM, n (%) | 56 (28) | 59 (29.5) | χ2 = 0.110 | 0.740 | |
| Bilirubin | |||||
| Mean ± SD | 10.6 ±4.6 | 11.2 ±3.7 | U = 17959.5 | 0.076 | |
| Median (min.–max.) | 11 (2–31) | 10 (3–18) | |||
| Cannulation, n (%) | |||||
| Pre-cut | 15 (7.5) | 19 (9.5) | χ2 = 4.622 | 0.099 | |
| Trans-pancreatic | 9 (4.5) | 19 (9.5) | |||
| Selective | 176 (88) | 162 (81) | |||
| Largest stone size [mm] | |||||
| Mean ± SD | 12.4 ±3.5 | 12.6 ±3.2 | U = 19385.0 | 0.593 | |
| Median (min.–max.) | 12 (4–20) | 12 (3–20) | |||
| Number of stones | |||||
| Mean ± SD | 1.5 ±0.8 | 1.5 ±0.8 | U = 19406.0 | 0.536 | |
| Median (min.–max.) | 1 (1–5) | 1 (1–4) | |||
| CBD diameter [mm] | |||||
| Mean ± SD | 15.1 ±3.6 | 15.1 ±3.4 | U = 19997.5 | 0.998 | |
| Median (min.–max.) | 15 (8–25) | 15 (8–25) | |||
| Papillary location, n (%) | |||||
| PAD1 | 81 (40.5) | – | – | – | |
| PAD2 | 66 (33) | – | |||
| PAD3 | 53 (26.5) | – | |||
| Clearance of CBD, n (%) | 170 (85) | 168 (84) | χ2 = 0.076 | 0.782 | |
| Complication, n (%) | |||||
| No | 166 (83.0) | 154 (77.8) | χ2 = 1.982 | 0.371 | |
| Pancreatitis | 25 (12.5) | 30 (15.2) | |||
| Minor bleeding | 9 (4.5) | 14 (7.1) | |||
| Procedure time [min] | |||||
| Mean ± SD | 43.1 ±8.8 | 43.6 ±9.4 | U = 19562.5 | 0.705 | |
| Median (min.–max.) | 44 (20–67) | 44 (22–67) | |||
| EBD diameter [mm] (n = 100) | |||||
| Mean ± SD | 14.9 ±3.5 | 14.4 ±3.2 | U = 4482.0 | 0.192 | |
| Median (min.–max.) | 15 (8–20) | 15 (8–20) | |||
When comparing the three types of PAD, there were 51 (63%) males and 30 (37%) females with type 1, with a mean age of 58 ±7 years. There were 41 (62.1%) males and 25 (37.9%) females with type 2, with a mean age of 59.7 ±5.9 years. There were 35 (66%) males and 18 (34%) females with type 3, with a mean age of 60.3 ±6.8 years. The study found no significant differences between the types of PAD regarding age (p = 0.113) or sex (p = 0.900) (Table I).
Effect of PAD on size and number of stones and CBD diameter
In the PAD group, there were 1–5 stones with a mean of 1.5 ±0.8 stones, a mean largest stone size of 12.4 ±3.5 mm, and a mean CBD diameter of 15.1 ±3.6 mm. In the non-PAD group, there were 1–4 stones with a mean of 1.5 ±0.8 stones, a mean largest stone size of 12.6 ±3.2 mm, and a mean CBD diameter of 15.1 ±3.4 mm. The study found no significant differences between the PAD and non-PAD groups regarding the number of stones (p = 0.536), stone size (p = 0.593), or CBD diameter (p = 0.998) (Table II).
| Category | PAD1 (n = 81) | PAD2 (n = 66) | PAD3 (n = 53) | Test of significance | P-value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age [years] | ||||||
| Mean ± SD | 58 ±7 | 59.7 ±5.9 | 60.3 ±6.8 | F = 2.209 | 0.113 | |
| Median (min.–max.) | 57 (45–76) | 59 (48–71) | 61 (44–76) | |||
| Sex, n (%) | ||||||
| Male | 51 (63) | 41 (62.1) | 35 (66) | χ2 = 0.211 | 0.900 | |
| Female | 30 (37) | 25 (37.9) | 18 (34) | |||
| DM, n (%) | 25 (30.9) | 18 (27.3) | 13 (24.5) | χ2 = 0.664 | ||
When comparing the three types of PAD, there were 1–4 stones with a mean of 1.56 ±0.8 stones, a mean largest stone size of 12 ±3.2 mm, and a mean CBD diameter of 14.7 ±3.3 mm in type 1 patients. In type 2 patients, there were 1–4 stones with a mean of 1.41 ±0.7 stones, a mean largest stone size of 12.9 ±3.5 mm, and a mean CBD diameter of 15.2 ±3.3 mm. In type 3 patients, there were 1–5 stones with a mean of 1.43 ±0.9 stones, a mean largest stone size of 12.5 ±4 mm, and a mean CBD diameter of 15.4 ±4.2 mm. The study found no significant differences between the types of PAD regarding the number of stones (p = 0.288), stone size (p = 0.266), or CBD diameter (p = 0.620) (Table II, Figure 1).
Discussion
In our study, we aimed to evaluate the success and safety of ERCP procedures in patients with PAD. While prior research has produced differing results on this topic, our study provides valuable insights.
Contrary to some previous studies [6, 15], our research found no statistically significant difference in age between patients with PAD and those without (p = 0.185). It is worth noting that PAD is infrequently observed in patients under 40 years old. Zheng et al. reported a higher prevalence of PAD in individuals over 60, suggesting a significant correlation between PAD and age [16]. The higher incidence of PAD in older age may be attributed to age-related factors such as muscular and intestinal wall deterioration, weakened intestinal contractile tone, slow peristalsis, and abnormal retention of intestinal contents [17].
Gender-based analysis revealed conflicting findings in past research [13, 17, 18]. However, our study found no significant difference between the presence of PAD and gender (p = 0.756). Karaahmet et al. found a higher prevalence of PAD in females [5], and Sfarti et al. noted a weak association with female gender [19]. In contrast, studies by Mohammad et al. [3] and Örmeci et al. [7] indicated that the prevalence of PAD was not related to gender, while Zheng et al. reported a higher prevalence of PAD in males [16].
When analyzing the types of PAD, our study found no significant differences in age (p = 0.113) or gender (p = 0.900) among different types. This aligns with Hu et al.’s findings [20] but contrasts with studies by Kim et al. [21] and Chen et al. [4], which found that PAD type 1 was significantly more common in older patients.
Concerning the association between PAD and stone size and CBD diameter, previous studies have reported mixed results. Some indicated significant associations between the presence of PAD and larger stones or larger CBD diameters [22–24], while others, such as Panteris et al., found no such associations [13]. In our study, no significant associations were observed between PAD and stone size (p = 0.593), the number of stones (p = 0.536), or CBD diameter (p = 0.998), and these factors were not significantly affected by different types of PAD.
Historically, PAD was considered a primary factor contributing to ERCP failure, with associations with higher cannulation failure, lower CBD clearance rates, and longer procedure times [2, 6, 11, 25]. However, more recent research has challenged this notion, with findings indicating that the presence of PAD does not significantly affect ERCP success rates [1, 5, 15]. This inconsistency may be attributed to variations in cannulation techniques, endoscopist experience, patient characteristics, and a lack of adjustment for these variables in patient and control groups [13].
Our study confirmed that the presence of PAD had no significant effects on the difficulty of cannulation, or the methods used (p = 0.099), procedure times (p = 0.705), or the rate of CBD clearance (p = 0.782). Notably, Chen et al. reported no significant differences in the success rate of selective cannulation between patients with and without PAD but did find a significantly lower CBD clearance rate in patients with PAD [4]. Corral et al. also found that the success rate of ERCP was similar for patients with or without PAD, with shorter procedure times in patients with PAD but similar fluoroscopy times for PAD and non-PAD groups [14].
Classifying PAD into three types based on the location of the papilla, our study revealed that PAD type 1, where the papilla is inside the diverticulum, was associated with significantly more difficult cannulation and a significant failure of the selective cannulation technique (p < 0.001). It was also linked to a significantly lower rate of CBD clearance (p < 0.001) compared to other types. This aligns with the findings of Lobo et al. and Panteris et al. [8, 13] and Chen et al. [4], who reported that cannulation was more challenging in type 1 PAD.
It is important to note that Mu et al., in a meta-analysis, found that an interdiverticular papilla (IDP) was associated with a higher rate of cannulation failure [26], and Tabak et al. reported that cannulation in type 1 PAD was more challenging and associated with longer cannulation times compared to other types [27]. This may be attributed to the difficulty in locating the papillary orifice and predicting the bile duct direction in this type of PAD [28].
In contrast to our study, Tyagi et al. [17] and Katsinelos et al. [24] reported that the location of the papilla had no effect on cannulation success and no differences in final cannulation rates or methods between different types of PAD.
Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography is an invasive procedure, and complications are a possibility. Our study documented only post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) and minor bleeding, with no instances of perforation, cholangitis, or major bleeding. The incidence of PEP following endoscopic papillary balloon dilation (EPBD) ranges from 5% to 19.8% [29]. Balloon dilatation can cause spasm and compression of the distal pancreatic duct, restricting the flow of pancreatic juice and leading to pancreatitis [30]. Combining small endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) with EPBD can reduce the risk of PEP [31].
PAD can increase the risk of bleeding due to repeated cannulation attempts, the need for additional EPBD or EST, and deformation of adjacent blood vessels [32]. While there have been conflicting reports on post-ERCP complications in patients with PAD, our study found no significant difference between patients with PAD and those without regarding post-ERCP complications (p = 0.371).
Some studies have reported higher rates of PEP in patients with PAD [33], while others have shown similar rates of PEP in patients with and without PAD [3, 7, 19]. Some studies have even suggested that PAD might have a protective effect against PEP [32, 34]. In contrast to our findings, Parlak et al. and Chen et al. reported significantly higher rates of PEP in patients with PAD [15, 35]. However, Hu et al. found that the rate of PEP did not increase in patients with PAD, with all cases of pancreatitis being mild and recovering with conservative treatment within 3 days [20]. A meta-analysis by Jayaraj in 2018 indicated that the presence of PAD was not a risk factor for PEP [36].
Consistent with our results, Hu et al. [20], Park et al. [28], and Jayaraj et al. [36] reported that the rate of ERCP-related bleeding was similar in patients with and without PAD. However, in contrast to our findings, Chen et al. [15] and Karaahmet et al. [5] reported a higher incidence of bleeding in patients with PAD. Conversely, our study investigated the impact of various types of PAD and identified that PAD type 1 was significantly associated with an increased rate of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) (p = 0.002). However, when considering bleeding, no significant differences were observed among different types of PAD (p = 0.286). Kim et al. [37] and Tabak et al. [27] concurred by reporting a higher rate of PEP in patients with PAD type 1 than in those with other types. Tabak et al. [27] additionally noted a higher rate of bleeding in type 3.
The elevated incidence of PEP in type 1 PAD can be explained by the specific location of the papilla within the diverticulum, making cannulation and predicting the bile duct direction more challenging. This increased complexity may lead to pancreatitis due to unnecessary contrast medium injection or manipulation of the pancreatic duct [37]. In contrast to our findings, Chen et al. [15] and Mu et al. [26] reported no significant association between the type of PAD and the rate of PEP.
Our study had several advantages. Firstly, all patients were more homogeneous as they had the same indication for ERCP. Secondly, it was a prospective study, allowing for precise recording of procedure details, fluoroscopy times, and post-ERCP complications.
However, our study had certain limitations. Firstly, it was conducted at a single center, potentially limiting the generalizability of the results. Secondly, all procedures were performed by highly experienced endoscopists, and as such, these findings may not be directly applicable to less experienced practitioners.
Conclusions
Our study concludes that the presence of PAD did not act as a barrier to the technical success of ERCP or the complete clearance of the common bile duct. Furthermore, PAD type 1 was associated with more challenging cannulation and a higher incidence of PEP compared to other PAD types.
Funding
No external funding.
Ethical approval
The research was approved by the Bioethics Committee. Approval number: NLI IRB 00003413 FWA 0000227.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
Untitled section
References
- 1.Sun Z, Bo W, Jiang P, et al. Different types of periampullary duodenal diverticula are associated with occurrence and recurrence of bile duct stones: a case-control study from a Chinese center. Gastroenterol Res Pract 2016; 2016: 9381759.
- 2.Altonbary AY, Bahgat MH. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in periampullary diverticulum: the challenge of cannulation. World J Gastrointest Endosc 2016; 8: 282-7.
- 3.Mohammad AA, Afzali ES, Shahnazi A, et al. ERCP features and outcome in patients with periampullary duodenal diverticulum. ISRN Gastroenterol 2013; 2013: 217261.
- 4.Chen L, Xia L, Lu Y, et al. Influence of periampullary diverticulum on the occurrence of pancreaticobiliary diseases and outcomes of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2017; 29: 105-11.
- 5.Karaahmet F, Kekilli M. The presence of periampullary diverticulum increased the complications of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2018; 30: 1009-12.
- 6.Zippi M, Traversa G, Pica R, et al. Efficacy and safety of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) performed in patients with periampullary duodenal diverticula (PAD). Clin Ter 2014; 165: 291-4.
- 7.Örmeci N, Deda X, Kalkan Ç, et al. Impact of periampullary diverticula on bile duct stones and ampullary carcinoma. Euroasian J Hepatogastroenterol 2016; 6: 31-4.
- 8.Lobo DN, Balfour TW, Iftikhar SY. Periampullary diverticula: consequences of failed ERCP. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 1998; 80: 326-31.
- 9.Kim KH, Kim TN. Endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation in patients with periampullary diverticula. World J Gastroenterol 2013; 19: 7168-76.
- 10.Lofeld RJ, Dekkers PE. The impact of duodenal diverticuli and the execution of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreaticography. Int Sch Res Not 2016; 2016: 5026289.
- 11.Kang HS, Hyun JJ, Kim SY, et al. Lemmel’s syndrome, an unusual cause of abdominal pain and jaundice by impacted intradiverticular enterolith: case report. J Korean Med Sci 2014; 29: 874-8.
- 12.Boix J, Lorenzo-Zúñiga V, Añaños F, et al. Impact of periampullary duodenal diverticula at endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: a proposed classification of periampullary duodenal diverticula. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 2006; 16: 208-11.
- 13.Panteris V, Vezakis A, Filippou G, et al. Influence of juxtapapillary diverticula on the success or difficulty of cannulation and complication rate. Gastrointest Endosc 2008; 68: 903-10.
- 14.Corral JE, Mousa OY, Kröner PT, et al. Impact of periampullary diverticulum on ERCP performance: a matched case-control study. Clin Endosc 2019; 52: 65-71.
- 15.Chen Q, Zhang Y, Tang Z, et al. The role of periampullary diverticulum on the incidence of pancreaticobiliary diseases and the outcome of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreato-graphy. Arch Med Sci 2020; 17: 905-14.
- 16.Zheng H, Yan S, Li D, et al. Influence of periampullary diverticula on endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Exp Ther Med 2021; 21: 410.
- 17.Tyagi P, Sharma P, Sharma BC, et al. Periampullary diverticula and technical success of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Surg Endosc 2009; 23: 1342-5.
- 18.Leivonen MK, Halttunen JA, Kivilaakso EO. Duodenal diverticulum at endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, analysis of 123 patients. Hepatogastroenterology 1996; 43: 961-6.
- 19.Sfarti VC, Bălan G Jr, Chiriac AŞ, et al. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in patients with periampullary diverticula. Rom J Morphol Embryol 2018; 59: 833-7.
- 20.Hu Y, Kou DQ, Guo SB. The influence of periampullary diverticula on ERCP for treatment of common bile duct stones. Sci Rep 2020; 10: 11477.
- 21.Kim CW, Chang JH, Kim JH, et al. Size and type of periampullary duodenal diverticula are associated with bile duct diameter and recurrence of bile duct stones. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2013; 28: 893-8.
- 22.Sherman S, Hawes RH, Lehman GA. A new approach to performing endoscopic sphincterotomy in the setting of a juxtapapillary duodenal diverticulum. Gastrointest Endosc 1991; 37: 353-5.
- 23.Christoforidis E, Goulimaris I, Kanellos I, et al. The role of juxtapapillary duodenal diverticula in biliary stone disease. Gastrointest Endosc 2002; 55: 543-7.
- 24.Katsinelos P, Chatzimavroudis G, Tziomalos K, et al. Impact of periampullary diverticula on the outcome and fluoroscopy time in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Hepatobiliary Pancreat Dis Int 2013; 12: 408-14.
- 25.Coman IS, Radu EV, Șandru V, et al. Retained common bile duct lithiasis at a patient with periampullary duodenal diverticulum. Chirurgia (Bucur) 2016; 111: 517-21.
- 26.Mu P, Yue P, Li F, et al. Does periampullary diverticulum affect ERCP cannulation and post-procedure complications? an up-to-date meta-analysis. Turk J Gastroenterol 2020; 31: 193-204.
- 27.Tabak F, Ji GZ, Miao L. Impact of periampullary diverticulum on biliary cannulation and ERCP outcomes: a single-center experience. Surg Endosc 2021; 35: 5953-61.
- 28.Park CS, Park CH, Koh HR, et al. Needle-knife fistulotomy in patients with periampullary diverticula and difficult bile duct cannulation. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2012; 27: 1480-3.
- 29.Disario JA, Freeman ML, Bjorkman DJ, et al. Endoscopic balloon dilation compared with sphincterotomy for extraction of bile duct stones. Gastroenterology 2004; 127: 1291-9.
- 30.Tsujino T, Isayama H, Komatsu Y, et al. Risk factors for pancreatitis in patients with common bile duct stones managed by endoscopic papillary balloon dilation. Am J Gastroenterol 2005; 100: 38-42.
- 31.Yang XM, Hu B, Pan YM, et al. Endoscopic papillary large-balloon dilation following limited sphincterotomy for the removal of refractory bile duct stones: experience of 169 cases in a single Chinese center. J Dig Dis 2013; 14: 125-31.
- 32.Zoepf T, Zoepf DS, Arnold JC, et al. The relationship between juxtapapillary duodenal diverticula and disorders of the biliopancreatic system: analysis of 350 patients. Gastrointest Endosc 2001; 54: 56-61.
- 33.Uomo G, Manes G, Ragozzino A, et al. Periampullary extraluminal duodenal diverticula and acute pancreatitis: an underestimated etiological association. Am J Gastroenterol 1996; 91: 1186-8.
- 34.Tham TKC, Kelly M. Association of periampullary duodenal diverticula with bile duct stones and with technical success of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Endoscopy 2004; 36: 1050-3.
- 35.Parlak E, Suna N, Kuzu UB, et al. Diverticulum with papillae: does position of papilla affect technical success? Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 2015; 25: 395-8.
- 36.Jayaraj M, Mohan BP, Dhindsa BS, et al. Periampullary diverticula and ERCP outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Dig Dis Sci 2019; 64: 1364-76.
- 37.Kim HW, Kang DH, Choi CW, et al. Limited endoscopic sphincterotomy plus large balloon dilation for choledocholithiasis with periampullary diverticula. World J Gastroenterol 2010; 16: 4335-40.