Clinical outcomes and learning curve for ERCP during advanced endoscopy training: a comparison of supine versus prone positioning

Abstract

Background and AimsNo studies have evaluated trainees’ outcomes when learning ERCP with patients in the supine and prone positions simultaneously. We aimed to assess whether patient position impacts procedural outcomes and learning curve.MethodsWe prospectively evaluated patients undergoing ERCP by a supervised advanced endoscopy trainee (AET) at a tertiary care center. Adult patients with native papillae were included. The AET was universally given 5 attempts per cannulation. Outcomes were evaluated quarterly.ResultsSuccessful cannulation was achieved in 44 supine (69%) and 17 prone (68%) patients (P = .95). Although mean time to reach the papilla was shorter in the supine patient position, time to biliary cannulation (7.8 vs 9.4 minutes, P = .53) and number of attempts were similar. A stepwise increase was seen in cannulation rates throughout the academic year (P < .01) and increased more in supine patients (P = .01). Procedure and total room times were shorter in supine patients.ConclusionsShorter procedure and room turnover times and a comparable cannulation rate were found for supine versus prone ERCP. No studies have evaluated trainees’ outcomes when learning ERCP with patients in the supine and prone positions simultaneously. We aimed to assess whether patient position impacts procedural outcomes and learning curve. We prospectively evaluated patients undergoing ERCP by a supervised advanced endoscopy trainee (AET) at a tertiary care center. Adult patients with native papillae were included. The AET was universally given 5 attempts per cannulation. Outcomes were evaluated quarterly. Successful cannulation was achieved in 44 supine (69%) and 17 prone (68%) patients (P = .95). Although mean time to reach the papilla was shorter in the supine patient position, time to biliary cannulation (7.8 vs 9.4 minutes, P = .53) and number of attempts were similar. A stepwise increase was seen in cannulation rates throughout the academic year (P < .01) and increased more in supine patients (P = .01). Procedure and total room times were shorter in supine patients. Shorter procedure and room turnover times and a comparable cannulation rate were found for supine versus prone ERCP.