Objective evaluation of ERCP procedures: A simple grading scale for evaluating technical difficulty

Postgraduate Medical Journal

Volumn 79, Issue 934, 2003, Pages 467-470

  Ragunath, Krish ^a,b   Thomas, L A ^b   Cheung, W Y ^c   Duane, P D ^b   Richards, D G ^b  

^a QUEEN S MEDICAL CENTRE   (United Kingdom)

^b MORRISTON HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^c SWANSEA UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BLEEDING; CHOLANGITIS; COMPETENCE; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC PROCEDURE; ENDOSCOPIC RETROGRADE CHOLANGIOPANCREATOGRAPHY; ENDOSCOPIC SURGERY; ENDOSCOPY; FEMALE; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MEDICAL ASSISTANT; MEDICAL PRACTICE; PANCREATITIS; PERFORATION; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; RELIABILITY;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; CHOLANGIOPANCREATOGRAPHY, ENDOSCOPIC RETROGRADE; CLINICAL COMPETENCE; CONSULTANTS; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MEDICAL STAFF, HOSPITAL; MIDDLE AGED; OBSERVER VARIATION; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; REFERENCE STANDARDS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 0141740756     PISSN: 00325473     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/pmj.79.934.467     Document Type: Article

References (11)

1. Tanner AR. ERCP: present practice in o single region. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 1996;8:145-8.
2. Loperfeido S, Angelini G, Benedetti G, et al. Major early complications from diagnostic and therapeutic ERCP: a prospective multicenter study. Gastrointest Endosc 1998;48:1-10.
3. Rabenstein T, Schneider HT, Nicklas M, et al. Impact of skill and experience of the endoscopist on the outcome of endoscopic sphincterotomy techniques. Gostrointest Endosc 1999;50:628-36.
4. Cotton PB, Lehman G, Vennes J, et al. Endoscopic sphincterotomy complications and their management: an attempt at consensus. Gastrointest Endosc 1997;37:383-93.
5. Fleischer DE, Van de Mierop F, Eisen GM, et al. A new system for defining endoscopic complications emphasizing the measure of importance. Gastrointest Endosc 1997;45:128-33.
6. Jowell PS, Baillie J, Stanley BM, et al. Quantitative assessment of procedural competence. A prospective study of training in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Ann Intern Med 1996;125:983-9.
7. Palazzo L, O'Toole D. EUS in common bile duct stones. Gastrointest Endosc 2002;56:S49-57.
8. Baillie J. Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography: the gastroenterologist's perspective. Gastrointest Endosc 2002;55:S13-15.
9. Lobo DN, Balfour TW, Iftikhar SY. Periampullary diverticula: consequences of failed ERCP. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 1998;80:326-31.
10. Schutz SM, Abbott RM. Grading ERCPs by degreee of difficulty: a new concept to produce more meaningful outcome data. Gastrointest Endosc 2000;51:535-9.
11. Madhotra R, Cotton PB, Vaughn J, et al. Analyzing ERCP practice by a modified degree of difficulty scale: a multicentre database analysis. Am J Gastroenterol 2000;95:2480-1 (abstract).