The efficacy of endoscopic sphincterotomy after cholecystectomy in patients with sphincter-of-Oddi dysfunction. Manometry based randomised trial of endoscopic sphincterotomy for sphincter of Oddi dysfunction.
Forty-seven patients thought to have dysfunction of the sphincter of Oddi were randomly assigned to undergo endoscopic sphincterotomy or sham sphincterotomy in a prospective double-blind study. All the patients had pain resembling biliary pain, had previously undergone a cholecystectomy, and had clinical characteristics suggesting biliary obstruction. The patients were randomly assigned to the treatment (n = 23) or nontreatment (n = 24) group before manometric examination of the sphincter of Oddi was performed. Sphincterotomy resulted in improvement in pain scores at one-year follow-up in 10 of 11 patients with elevated sphincter pressure. In contrast, there was improvement in only 3 of 12 patients with elevated basal sphincter pressures who underwent the sham procedure. In patients with normal sphincter pressure, pain scores were similar regardless of treatment. After one year, sphincterotomy was performed in 12 symptomatic patients who had undergone the sham procedure--7 with elevated sphincter pressures and 5 with normal sphincter pressures. Forty patients were followed for four years. Of the 23 patients with increased sphincter pressure, 10 of the original 11 who underwent sphincterotomy remained virtually free of pain; 7 others who subsequently underwent sphincterotomy also benefited from it. Thus, 17 of 18 patients with sphincter-of-Oddi dysfunction verified by manometry benefited from sphincterotomy. In patients with normal sphincter pressure, sphincterotomy was no more beneficial than sham therapy. Our observations suggest that endoscopic sphincterotomy offers long-term relief of pain in a group of patients with verified sphincter-of-Oddi dysfunction. Endoscopic sphincterotomy for biliary-type pain after cholecystectomy remains controversial despite evidence of efficacy in some patients with a high sphincter of Oddi (SO) basal pressure (SO stenosis).
                To evaluate the effects of sphincterotomy in patients randomised on the basis of results from endoscopic biliary manometry.
                Endoscopic biliary manometry was performed in 81 patients with biliary-type pain after cholecystectomy who had a dilated bile duct on retrograde cholangiography, transient increases in liver enzymes after episodes of pain, or positive responses to challenge with morphine/neostigmine. The manometric record was categorised as SO stenosis, SO dyskinesia, or normal, after which the patient was randomised in each category to sphincterotomy or to a sham procedure in a prospective double blind study. Symptoms were assessed at intervals of three months for 24 months by an independent observer, and the effects of sphincterotomy on sphincter function were monitored by repeat manometry after three and 24 months.
                In the SO stenosis group, symptoms improved in 11 of 13 patients treated by sphincterotomy and in five of 13 subjected to a sham procedure (p = 0.041). When manometric records were categorised as dyskinesia or normal, results from sphincterotomy and sham procedures did not differ. Complications were rare, but included mild pancreatitis in seven patients (14 episodes) and a collection in the right upper quadrant, presumably related to a minor perforation. At three months, the endoscopic incision was extended in 19 patients because of manometric evidence of incomplete division of the sphincter.
                In patients with presumed SO dysfunction, endoscopic sphincterotomy is helpful in those with manometric features of SO stenosis.
These results suggest that sphincterotomy for biliary sphincter of Oddi dysfunction appears effective in those patients with an elevated sphincter of Oddi basal pressure (>40 mmHg), but is no better than placebo in those patients with a normal basal pressure. The results reported in this review must be interpreted with caution as there are only two studies and one of the reviewers (Toouli) has been an author in both studies. Further trials by independent groups are recommended.