Copyright
©The Author(s) 2025.
World J Gastrointest Endosc. Jul 16, 2025; 17(7): 107645
Published online Jul 16, 2025. doi: 10.4253/wjge.v17.i7.107645
Published online Jul 16, 2025. doi: 10.4253/wjge.v17.i7.107645
Table 1 Practical considerations for pancreatoscopy
Practical considerations |
The amount of contrast injected into the pancreatic duct does not interfere with the pancreatoscopy procedure |
Intermittent fluoroscopic confirmation of the pancreatoscope's position is recommended |
Maintain a collapsed duodenal lumen to reduce the amount of intraductal air |
Aspirate intraluminal air to minimize the volume of fluid in the pancreatic duct |
Avoid suctioning the pancreatic duct wall |
Administer rectal diclofenac at the start of the procedure as prophylaxis for post-pancreatoscopy pancreatitis |
Table 2 Comparison of electrohydraulic lithotripsy and laser lithotripsy
Feature | Electrohydraulic lithotripsy | Laser lithotripsy |
Mechanism | High-pressure shock waves | Laser energy (e.g., holmium) |
Efficacy | High fragmentation rate | Higher precision, better control |
Tissue injury risk | Higher due to shock waves | Lower due to targeted energy |
Preferred for | Hard, larger stones | Smaller, impacted stones |
Table 3 Comparison of adverse events in pancreatoscopy and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography
Adverse event | Pancreatoscopy | Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography |
Post-procedural pancreatitis | 4%-17% | 3.5%-9.7% |
Cholangitis | 3.7% | 0.5%-3.0% |
Bleeding | 3.4% | 0.3%-9.6% |
Perforation | 4.3% | 0.08%-0.6% |
Sedation-related adverse events | Not reported | 2%-26% |
- Citation: Mansilla-Vivar R, Segovia-Vergara E, Pons-Beltrán V. Pancreatoscopy in the evaluation and management of pancreatic disorders. World J Gastrointest Endosc 2025; 17(7): 107645
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1948-5190/full/v17/i7/107645.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4253/wjge.v17.i7.107645