SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

Abstract

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. INTRODUCTION
  4. METHODS
  5. RESULTS
  6. DISCUSSION
  7. Bibliography

Aim:

To evaluate the technical feasibility, safety, and short-term efficacy of botulinum toxin injection for pancreatic sphincter of Oddi dysfunction and to analyse whether the symptomatic response to botulinum toxin might be a predictor of outcome for endoscopic sphincterotomy.

Methods:

Fifteen consecutive patients (nine female, aged 38 ± 12 years) with frequent attacks (median four) of acute pancreatitis within 6 months, and manometrically proven pancreatic sphincter of Oddi dysfunction underwent endoscopic injection of 100 units of botulinum toxin into the major papilla. All patients underwent prospective follow-up thereafter and in cases of recurrent pancreatitis manometry this was repeated and pancreatic sphincterotomy was performed.

Results:

No side-effects occurred after botulinum toxin injection in any patient. Within 3 months after botulinum toxin treatment, 12 out of 15 patients remained asymptomatic (80% primary response). Only one out of three patients without symptomatic benefit showed continued elevated pancreatic sphincter pressure at manometry and only this patient benefited from pancreatic sphincterotomy later on. Eleven of the 12 patients initially responding to botulinum toxin injection developed a symptomatic relapse 6 ± 2 months after botulinum toxin treatment. These patients then achieved long-term clinical remission from pancreatic or combined (biliary and pancreatic, n=5) sphincterotomy (median follow-up, 15 months).

Conclusion:

Endoscopic botulinum toxin injection into the papilla of Vater is a safe procedure for treatment of pancreatic sphincter of Oddi dysfunction that may provide short-term relief in about 80% of the patients. Those patients who respond to botulinum toxin may subsequently gain definitive cure from sphincterotomy.


INTRODUCTION

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. INTRODUCTION
  4. METHODS
  5. RESULTS
  6. DISCUSSION
  7. Bibliography

Acute pancreatitis is characterized by the sudden onset of abdominal pain associated with elevated blood amylase and/or lipase activities. Among the various aetiologies about two-thirds of the cases can be attributed to biliary tract disease or ethanol abuse.1, 2 Sphincter of Oddi dysfunction, defined by a sphincter baseline pressure ≥ 40 mmHg, was found at endoscopic sphincter of Oddi manometry in 15–72% of patients with acute recurrent pancreatitis of otherwise unknown origin (so called ‘idiopathic’ recurrent pancreatitis).3[4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12]–13 Perfusion manometry of the pancreatic duct, however, is associated with a substantial risk to induce acute pancreatitis (up to 29%) especially when patients with presumed sphincter of Oddi are studied.12, 14[15][16]–17 Only after the introduction of modified techniques, reducing the risk of procedure-related pancreatitis, has manometric evaluation of the pancreatic sphincter segment become acceptable.17[18][19]–20 The only proof that sphincter of Oddi is the cause of recurrent pancreatitis in these patients is cure from further episodes after sphincter ablation. A favourable outcome had been reported in about 73–94%, after both surgical and endoscopic sphincterotomy.4, 5, 8, 10, 11, 21, 22 Post-interventional pancreatitis, however, was reported in up to 22% of the cases after endoscopic pancreatic sphincterotomy in this situation.8, 10, 11, 23[24]–25

Botulinum toxin, a potent inhibitor of acetycholine release from pre-synaptic, cholinergic nerve endings, significantly reduces the basal sphincter of Oddi pressure after local injection into the papilla of Vater.26 In a recent prospective study we found that botulinum toxin injection into the papilla was safe and effective in 22 patients with biliary sphincter of Oddi.27 This investigation evaluates whether this also applies to the patients with pancreatic sphincter of Oddi (who are at a higher risk for procedure-related pancreatitis) and whether botulinum toxin injection may serve as a pilot therapy identifying those pancreatic sphincter of Oddi-patients who will benefit from second line endoscopic pancreatic sphincterotomy.

METHODS

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. INTRODUCTION
  4. METHODS
  5. RESULTS
  6. DISCUSSION
  7. Bibliography

Fifteen consecutive patients (six male, nine female, mean age 38.1 ± 12.3 years, range 26–55 years) with at least two attacks of acute pancreatitis (abdominal pain associated with elevation of the serum amylase and lipase activities > 3-fold above normal) during the last 6 months were enrolled. CT-scans performed in nine of them during their pancreatitis episodes had revealed oedematous pancreatitis in all. In this group of referred patients, pancreatitis was neither attributed to gallstone disease nor to alcohol. Pancreatic sphincter of Oddi dysfunction (basal sphincter of Oddi pressure at least in the pancreatic sphincter portion ≥ 40 mmHg) was proven by manometry in all of them. Additional biliary sphincter hypertension was documented in eight out of 15 patients. The detailed clinical and manometric data of the 15 patients studied are given by Table 1.

Table 1.  Clinical and manometric data of 15 patients with acute recurrent pancreatitis due to pancreatic sphincter of Oddi dysfunction Thumbnail image of

These 15 patients were a selection from 42 patients who were referred to our department for evaluation of suspected pancreatic sphincter of Oddi dysfunction during a 5 year period. The 15 patients actually enrolled suffered from recurrent pancreatitis episodes with a median of four attacks of acute pancreatitis during the last 6 months prior to study entry (Table 1). Furthermore, seven of the 15 patients also experienced recurrent epigastric pain throughout their pancreatitis-free intervals.

All patients had normal liver tests and a normal bile duct diameter at endoscopic retrograde cholangiography (ERC). Common bile duct stones had been routinely excluded by ERC and additionally by intra-ductal ultrasonography (20 MHz) and light microscopic bile sample analysis (for detection of microlithiasis) in six out of 15 patients of whom four had been formerly cholecystectomized because of gallstones. None of the patients had undergone sphincterotomy or other surgical interventions at the bilio-pancreatic tract (except cholecystectomy) before study entry. ERP revealed a normal pancreatography in 11 patients but showed a slight dilation of the pancreatic duct in the remaining four cases (Table 1), without any further evidence for chronic pancreatitis (no pancreatic duct irregularities). Pancreas divisum had been excluded by ERP in all. None of the patients had evidence for either exocrine (normal stool weight, faecal fat and elastase concentrations during 3-day analysis, n=12, normal pancreolauryl test, n=5) or endocrine (oral glucose tolerance test) pancreatic insufficiency. Additional imaging procedures (abdominal ultrasonography, computed tomography, endoscopic ultrasound, n=4, magnetic resonance tomography, n=3) did not demonstrate any further pathology.

Endoscopic botulinum toxin injection

After an overnight fast, a standard side-viewing duodenoscope (JF 100 or TJF 130/140; Olympus Optical, Hamburg, Germany) was inserted under adequate sedation with i.v. propofol or benzodiazepines.28 After positioning the endoscope in front of the papilla of Vater, 100 mouse units of botulinum toxin (Botox, Pharma Merz, Frankfurt/Main, Germany), reconstituted in 1 mL of isotonic saline, were injected into the intra-duodenal sphincter of Oddi segment along the general direction of a virtual pancreatic sphincterotomy. For botulinum toxin administration the needle was inserted into the upper margin of the papillary orifice at the one o’clock position, injecting botulinum toxin as a single deposit through a standard sclerotherapy needle (0.5 mm diameter, 5 mm needle length). Because of the small injection volume, we do not split the total botulinum toxin dose into multiple deposits.27 Cannulation of the papilla was not intended and the procedure was performed on an out-patient basis with clinical monitoring at the endoscopy unit for 4 h after the procedure. The patients remained without oral intake overnight and they were routinely interviewed for side-effects on the evening of botulinum toxin injection and on the following morning, by telephone calls. If abdominal symptoms occurred during the 4 h observation period, the patients were admitted to our hospital and clinically followed overnight with blood samples (blood cell count, liver enzymes and serum amylase and lipase) taken 24 h after the endoscopic botulinum toxin injection. A post-botulinum toxin injection pancreatitis was defined according to published criteria.29

Clinical and manometric follow-up after botulinum toxin treatment

After botulinum toxin injection the patients were clinically re-visited at monthly intervals. In case of any abdominal pain after botulinum toxin injection, the patients were clinically re-investigated and at least serum amylase and lipase activities were measured.

If recurrence of acute pancreatitis was documented during a 3-month period after botulinum toxin treatment (botulinum toxin non-responder) or during the later course (botulinum toxin responder), endoscopic sphincter of Oddi manometry was repeated (the manometric recordings were analysed blindly with respect to the former manometric data and the duration of the symptomatic response to botulinum toxin) and selective pancreatic sphincterotomy was performed over a guide-wire, irrespective of the manometric finding.11, 17 Further, a straight 7 French pancreatic stent was inserted for several days in order to reduce the risk of post-sphincterotomy pancreatitis.30 If biliary sphincter hypertension was known from the index manometry before botulinum toxin treatment, a biliary sphincterotomy was added in the same session.

The presence of abdominal pain alone (without laboratory abnormalities) was not used to define the response to botulinum toxin treatment.

After sphincterotomy, all patients underwent further prospective clinical follow-up with symptom evaluation, physical examination and laboratory data at bi-monthly intervals. The patients were instructed to contact us immediately if severe abdominal pain recurred. Recurrence of acute pancreatitis during follow-up after sphincterotomy served as the clinical end-point of the study.

Statistics

All data are given as median and ranges and/or as mean ± s.d. Statistical analysis was performed with the Wilcoxon signed rank test or the exact Fisher-test whenever appropriate. A P < 0.05 was considered significant.

The study protocol had been approved by the Ethics Committee of the University of Frankfurt and written informed consent was obtained from all patients.

RESULTS

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. INTRODUCTION
  4. METHODS
  5. RESULTS
  6. DISCUSSION
  7. Bibliography

Treatment with botulinum toxin

Endoscopic botulinum toxin injection was technically successful in all patients. A significant papillary swelling was not observed in any case. All procedures could be performed within 4 min (median 3 min, range 2–4 min).

One patient reported epigastric cramping 1 h after botulinum toxin injection. Therefore, she was hospitalized overnight in our department. However, the serum amylase activity (as well as all other laboratory data) remained in the normal range at 1 and 4 h as well as 24 h after botulinum toxin treatment. Symptoms resolved completely after a single i.v. injection of 20 mg of N-butylscopolamine. Abdominal ultrasonography and gastroscopy (performed on the next day) showed no abnormalities. The patient was discharged without further complaints 48 h after botulinum toxin administration. No other side-effects were registered in any of the patients.

Clinical follow-up after treatment with botulinum toxin

At the 1 month control visit after botulinum toxin treatment, six out of seven patients reported complete relief from their recurrent abdominal pain. In the remaining patient only slight abdominal discomfort persisted (marked clinical improvement). No case of acute pancreatitis was registered in any of the 15 patients during the first month after botulinum toxin injection.

At the 3 month follow-up after botulinum toxin treatment, three patients (20%) had relapsed with acute pancreatitis (botulinum toxin non-responder), whereas the other 12 patients (80%) remained symptom-free (botulinum toxin responder; Table 2).

Table 2.  Clinical outcome of 15 patients with relapsing pancreatitis and pancreatic sphincter hypertension who underwent botulinum toxin injection and subsequent endoscopic sphincterotomy Thumbnail image of

Despite the fact that three of the 15 patients developed recurrence of acute pancreatitis, only one of these three botulinum toxin non-responders showed elevated pancreatic and biliary basal sphincter pressure at manometry (Table 2), thus proving therapeutic inefficacy of botulinum toxin injection in this patient. The other two patients had normal pancreatic sphincter of Oddi baseline pressures (Table 2) indicating that pancreatic sphincter of Oddi may not be the cause for recurrent pancreatitis in these two subjects. Along with our published experience with botulinum toxin injection for biliary sphincter of Oddi, the phasic sphincter of Oddi motor activity (i.e. amplitude, duration and frequency of the phasic sphincter contractions) was not altered after botulinum toxin administration in any of the patients.27

From the 12 botulinum toxin responders, 11 patients experienced abdominal pain associated with elevated serum amylase and lipase activities 6 ± 2 months (range, 4–9 months, median 5 months) after papillary botulinum toxin injection. Repeated endoscopic sphincter of Oddi manometry on this occasion revealed pancreatic sphincter hypertension (baseline pressure ≥ 40 mmHg) in all of them (Table 2). However, compared to the initial values before botulinum toxin injection, both the biliary and pancreatic sphincter baseline pressures were still significantly decreased (P < 0.05, Tables 1 and 2. One remaining patient was still in clinical remission at completion of the study (7 months after his botulinum toxin treatment) and therefore did not undergo a second manometry.

Clinical follow-up after pancreatic sphincterotomy for recurrence of pancreatitis after treatment with botulinum toxin

Pancreatic sphincterotomy alone was performed in six patients whereas the remaining eight patients had both pancreatic as well as biliary sphincterotomy (because pancreatic and biliary sphincter hypertension were found at index manometry). Mild pancreatitis (according to Cotton et al.) immediately after pancreatic (plus occasional biliary) sphincterotomy and pancreatic stent placement was observed in three of the 14 patients (21%).29 Clinical relevant bleeding or perforation did not occur.

The two patients with normalized basal sphincter of Oddi pressures but recurrence of pancreatitis within 3 months after botulinum toxin injection (botulinum toxin non-responders) both developed further pancreatitis episodes 2 and 4 months after pancreatic sphincterotomy, respectively. The other patient not responding to botulinum toxin who still had elevated sphincter pressure remained in clinical remission after a combined biliary and pancreatic sphincterotomy for a further follow-up of 18 months. The total follow-up of the three botulinum toxin non-responders was 14 ± 7 months (range 6–19 months, median 18 months).

The 11 patients initially responding to botulinum toxin treatment but developing recurrent pancreatitis after > 3 months could be clinically followed for 21 ± 12 months (range 10–48 months, median 15 months) after pancreatic sphincterotomy. All patients remained in clinical remission during the follow-up period. However, one of them experienced colicky epigastric pain 2 months after pancreatic sphincterotomy which was not accompanied by any elevation of the pancreatic enzymes. After other causes of abdominal pain had been ruled out (abdominal ultrasonography, upper and lower gastrointestinal endoscopy, endoscopic ultrasound), sphincter of Oddi manometry was performed again in this patient. A pancreatic sphincter baseline pressure of 19 mmHg with nearly abolished phasic contraction activity (as a consequence of the former pancreatic sphincterotomy) was found but the biliary sphincter pressure was 40 mmHg with regular phasic sphincter contractions. Therefore, pancreatic sphincterotomy was extended (the residual sphincter pressure thereafter was 8 mmHg) and additional biliary sphincterotomy was performed (which completely abolished the biliary sphincter pressure). Thereafter, the patient was again free of complaints for the rest of his follow-up (10 months).

In summary, only one out of three botulinum toxin non-responders benefited from endoscopic sphincter ablation (pancreatic and occasional biliary sphincterotomy), whereas all of the 11 patients with late pancreatitis recurrence after botulinum toxin injection (so called botulinum toxin responders) benefited from endoscopic sphincter ablation (botulinum toxin responders P < 0.05 vs. botulinum toxin non-responder).

DISCUSSION

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. INTRODUCTION
  4. METHODS
  5. RESULTS
  6. DISCUSSION
  7. Bibliography

Our prospective clinical trial evaluated both technical feasibility and safety, as well as efficacy of endoscopic botulinum toxin injection for pancreatic sphincter of Oddi dysfunction in patients with recurrent pancreatitis.

Evidence for a key role of sphincter of Oddi in the aetiology of idiopathic recurrent pancreatitis is increasing and fostered by different methodological approaches. Studies with either real time ultrasonography or magnetic resonance cholangio-pancreatography showed an abnormal increase in the pancreatic duct diameter after i.v. secretin infusion (indicating outlet obstruction) in patients with idiopathic recurrent pancreatitis when compared with controls.31[32][33][34]–35 Further, a positive secretin test was associated with a favourable clinical outcome after surgical sphincteroplasty.31 By direct measurement of sphincter of Oddi motor function with endoscopic manometry, sphincter of Oddi was found in 15–72% of such patients.3[4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12]–13 Recurrent pancreatitis can result from dysfunction of the biliary sphincter segment, the pancreatic sphincter zone, or both.6, 7, 11[12]–13, 17, 18 Most manometric studies recorded sphincter pressure in one duct only (biliary or pancreatic); unfortunately some do not report which duct was addressed. Those series evaluating both ducts, however, report higher frequencies (50–72%) of basal sphincter tone abnormalities of at least one duct in idiopathic pancreatitis patients.6, 7, 11, 12 Unfortunately, standard perfusion manometry of the pancreatic duct sphincter segment is hampered with a substantial incidence (26–29%) of procedure-related pancreatitis, especially in patients with suspected sphincter of Oddi.14[15]–16 It has been demonstrated recently that the use of a special perfusion catheter with an aspiration port, as well as pressure measurement with an electronic micro-transducer system can reduce the pancreatitis rate by avoiding the volume load of the pancreatic duct.19, 20 However, manometric techniques requires sophisticated equipment and experience and are therefore not widely used. With non-invasive techniques for the detection of pancreatic sphincter dysfunction (secretin stimulation during either ultrasonography or magnetic resonance cholangio-pancreatography), discrepant results have been reported if correlated with manometric data.33[34]–35 Therefore, some authorities do not accept or recommend these tests when making therapeutic decisions.17 Further, endoscopic transpapillary stent placement in the pancreatic duct has been used to select patients with idiopathic pancreatitis for sphincter ablation but this technique requires cannulation of the pancreatic duct (with its potential risk to induce pancreatitis) and ductal irregularities may result from pancreatic stent placement.36 Due to these circumstances, in routine clinical practice, a valid diagnosis of sphincter of Oddi is difficult to establish for patients with ‘idiopathic’ recurrent pancreatitis if manometry is not available. The performance of endoscopic pancreatic sphincterotomy based solely on the clinical suspicion of pancreatic duct obstruction (without manometry) also does not seem advisable since pancreatic sphincterotomy in this patient population is associated with a substantial risk for pancreatitis (21% in this series) and the clinical benefit is uncertain (the frequency of sphincter of Oddi in patients with recurrent pancreatitis is about 50%, and if sphincter of Oddi is documented the response to sphincter ablation is about 80%).8, 10, 11, 23[24]–25

In this scenario, the use of botulinum toxin may be a more feasible practical alternative. Cholinergic stimulation of the sphincter of Oddi increases the sphincter motor activity in animal models.18 Furthermore, it has been shown that excessive cholinergic stimulation with an acetylcholine agonist can induce acute pancreatitis.37 Recent data suggest that acute pancreatitis due to poisoning with scorpion toxin is caused by a stimulation of acetylcholine release from cholinergic nerve endings.38 Local injection of botulinum toxin, which is a potent inhibitor of acetylcholine release from cholinergic nerves, into the papilla of Vater was first shown in 1994 to reduce the sphincter of Oddi baseline tone and to accelerate the scintigraphically determined bile duct clearance in two patients with biliary sphincter of Oddi.26 In a larger series of 22 patients treated with botulinum toxin injection for biliary sphincter of Oddi, we found this method safe and effective.27 Furthermore, it has been shown only recently that four of five patients with recurrent pancreatitis due to pancreas divisum respond to botulinum toxin injection (50 mouse units) into the minor papilla.39 Along with a number of studies addressing the efficacy of botulinum toxin injection into other gastrointestinal sphincters, we have observed that the effect of botulinum toxin on the sphincter of Oddi as well as on the minor sphincter fade with time.27, 39[40][41][42][43][44]–45 In this situation both studies showed that endoscopic ablation of the respective sphincters may then offer definite cure for the patients.27, 39

The present investigation expands our knowledge to the treatment of pancreatic sphincter of Oddi with botulinum toxin. We show for the first time that local injection of botulinum toxin into the papilla of Vater (at the one o’clock position) may not only affect the targeted pancreatic duct sphincter but also reduces the tone in the biliary sphincter segment (Tables 1 and 2). This effect could be documented although we repeated manometry after botulinum toxin injection only in the case of a clinical relapse. Therefore, a positive clinical response to botulinum toxin injection was also obtained in six out of eight patients with proven sphincter hypertension of both sphincter segments.

Clinical remission after botulinum toxin injection for pancreatic sphincter of Oddi was restricted to a mean period of 5 ± 2 months. Therefore, repeated botulinum toxin injections would be necessary to induce relief from pancreatitis over a longer time span. However, we did not perform repetitive botulinum toxin injections and also would not recommend this because the effects of multiple injections into the papilla are, up to now, totally unclear. Morphological alterations may be anticipated because in patients who had undergone repeated botulinum toxin injections into the lower oesophageal sphincter for treatment of achalasia, scarring of the sphincter muscle with resulting difficulties in sphincter preparation during surgery has been reported.46 After a single botulinum toxin injection we found no macroscopic evidence for papillary damage in this study, nor in the preceding investigation for biliary sphincter of Oddi.27 All sphincterotomies performed on botulinum toxin treated patients were uneventful with regard to duodenal perforation. However, since our botulinum toxin responders gained long-term benefit from endoscopic sphincter ablation this remains the gold standard for definite therapy of patients with manometrically proven pancreatic sphincter of Oddi.

Based on our results (botulinum toxin as a highly effective treatment option for sphincter of Oddi without relevant side-effects, but with only short duration of action), botulinum toxin injection appears as an attractive pilot treatment modality. The use of botulinum toxin injection in patients with suspected pancreatic (or biliary) sphincter of Oddi may help to identify those patients who will benefit from sphincterotomy, especially in a setting, where manometry is not at hand. Botulinum toxin injection is technically much simpler and easier to perform than sphincter of Oddi manometry and may reduce the risk for procedure-related pancreatitis. In our experience of > 100 botulinum toxin injections for bilio-pancreatic sphincter of Oddi, procedure-related pancreatitis occurred in only one case and this was one of our first patients treated, in whom papillary swelling was observed after injection. For reasons of feasibility, safety, and efficacy, the probative use of botulinum toxin for establishing the diagnosis of (mainly biliary) sphincter of Oddi is therefore nowadays widely performed in several European countries.

For the treatment of pancreatic sphincter of Oddi, however, one has to keep in mind that our study was performed on a highly selected sub-group of patients with idiopathic pancreatitis, namely patients with frequent relapses of acute pancreatitis (with a median of four attacks during the last 6 months). In patients with more rare pancreatitis episodes, the short-term response to botulinum toxin may not be helpful as an indicator.

Further, the documented 80% response rate to botulinum toxin must be counterbalanced against an (ill-defined) placebo response rate of approximately 40–60%.

Up to now we have performed botulinum toxin treatment in patients with manometrically proven sphincter hypertension only, and our definition of response to botulinum toxin treatment in this study (clinical remission for at least 3 months) may be considered somewhat arbitrary because it is based solely on our experiences with the clinical response to botulinum toxin injection in biliary sphincter of Oddi patients.27 Furthermore, the number of patients without botulinum toxin response in this study is too small to determine a precise predictive value of the response to botulinum toxin injection for the patient outcome after sphincterotomy. Therefore, a randomized, controlled trial for patients with suspected pancreatic sphincter of Oddi is needed in order to determine the predictive value of probative botulinum toxin injection into the papilla of Vater.

In summary, our trial demonstrates, for the first time, that endoscopically guided injection of botulinum toxin into the papilla is a quick and safe procedure and may provide short-term relief (5 months) for about 80% of patients with acute recurrent pancreatitis due to pancreatic sphincter of Oddi dysfunction. Furthermore, botulinum toxin treatment may be indicative of prolonged response after sphincterotomy in botulinum toxin responders.

Bibliography

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. INTRODUCTION
  4. METHODS
  5. RESULTS
  6. DISCUSSION
  7. Bibliography
  • 1
    Grendell JH. Idiopathic acute pancreatitis. Gastroenterol Clin N Am 1990; 19: 843 8.
  • 2
    Steinberg W & Terner S. Acute pancreatitis. N Engl J Med 1991; 330: 1198 210.
  • 3
    Toouli J, Roberts-Thomson IC, Dent J, et al. Sphincter of Oddi motility disorders in patients with idiopathic recurrent pancreatitis. Br J Surg 1985; 72: 859 63.
  • 4
    Stone JE, Hogan WJ, Geenen JE, et al. Acute recurrent pancreatitis: the role of sphincter of Oddi manometry in predicting long-term benefit of therapy. Gastroenterology 1988; 94: 446 446(Abstract).
  • 5
    Venu RP, Geenen JE, Hogan W, et al. Idiopathic recurrent pancreatitis. An approach to diagnosis and treatment. Dig Dis Sci 1989; 34: 56 60.
  • 6
    Raddawi HM, Geenen JE, Hogan WJ, et al. Pressure measurements from biliary and pancreatic segments of sphincter of Oddi. Comparison between patients with functional abdominal pain, biliary, or pancreatic disease. Dig Dis Sci 1991; 36: 71 4.
  • 7
    Silverman WB, Ruffolo TA, Sherman S, et al. Correlation of basal sphincter pressures measured from the bile duct and the pancreatic duct in patients with suspected sphincter of Oddi dysfunction. Gastrointest Endosc 1992; 38: 440 3.
  • 8
    Catalano MF, Sivak M, Falk GW, et al. Idiopathic pancreatitis: Diagnostic role of sphincter of Oddi manometry and response to endoscopic sphincterotomy. Gastrointest Endosc 1993; 39: 310 310(Abstract).
  • 9
    Coyle W, Tarnasky P, Knapple W, et al. Evaluation of unexplained acute pancreatitis using ERCP, sphincter of Oddi manometry and endoscopic ultrasound. Gastrointest Endosc 1996; 43: 378 378(Abstract).
  • 10
    Kaw M, Verma R, Brodmerkel GJ. ERCP, biliary analysis, sphincter of Oddi manometry in idiopathic pancreatitis and response to endoscopic sphincterotomy. Gastrointest Endosc 1996; 43: 408 408(Abstract).
  • 11
    Wehrmann T, Zipf A, Caspary WF, et al. Sphincter of Oddi dysfunction in idiopathic recurrent pancreatitis of unknown cause. Dtsch Med Wschr 1996; 121: 781 7.
  • 12
    Geenen JE & Nash JA. The role of sphincter of Oddi manometry and biliary microscopy in evaluating idiopathic recurrent pancreatitis. Endoscopy 1998; 30(Suppl.2): 237 41.
  • 13
    Eversman D, Fogel EL, Rusche M, et al. Frequency of abnormal pancreatic and biliary sphincter manometry compared with clinical suspicion of sphincter of Oddi dysfunction. Gastrointest Endosc 1999; 50: 637 41.
  • 14
    Cattau E, Johnson DA, Benjamin SB, et al. Sphincter of Oddi manometry: a survey of methodology, complications and clinical application. Gastrointest Endosc 1988; 34: 185 7.
  • 15
    Scicchitano J, Saccone GTP, Baker RA, et al. How safe is endoscopic sphincter of Oddi manometry? J Gastroenterol Hepatol 1995; 10: 334 6.
  • 16
    Wehrmann T, Wendler OG, Jung M, et al. Risk factors of endoscopic manometry for suspected sphincter of Oddi dysfunction. Dtsch Med Wschr 1997; 122: 808 14.
  • 17
    Lehman GA & Sherman S. Hypertensive pancreatic sphincter. Can J Gastroenterol 1998; 12: 333 7.
  • 18
    Chen JWC, Saccone GTP, Toouli J. Sphincter of Oddi dysfunction and acute pancreatitis. Gut 1998; 43: 305 8.
  • 19
    Sherman S, Hawes RH, Troiano FP, et al. Pancreatitis following bile duct sphincter of Oddi manometry: utility of the aspirating catheter. Gastrointest Endosc 1992; 38: 347 50.
  • 20
    Wehrmann T, Schmitt Th, Caspary WF, et al. Elektronische Mikrotransducer-Manometrie des Sphinkter Oddi: Papillenmanometrie ‘en passant’ während Routine-ERCP? Z Gastroenterology 1999; 37: 955 955(Abstract).
  • 21
    Guelrud M, Plaz J, Mendoza S, et al. Endoscopic treatment of type II pancreatic sphincter dysfunction. Gastrointest Endosc 1995; 41: 398 398(Abstract).
  • 22
    Toouli J, DiFrancesco V, Saccone G, et al. Division of the sphincter of Oddi for treatment of dysfunction associated with recurrent pancreatitis. Br J Surg 1996; 83: 1205 10.
  • 23
    Kozarek RA, Ball TJ, Patterson DJ, et al. Endoscopic pancreatic duct sphincterotomy: indications, techniques, and analysis of results. Gastrointest Endosc 1994; 40: 592 8.
  • 24
    Sherman S, Eversman D, Earle D, et al. Sphincterotomy by needle-knife over pancreatic stent technique lowers the post-procedure pancreatitis frequency and severity in sphincter of Oddi dysfunction patients. Gastrointest Endosc 1996; 43: 413 413 (Abstract).
  • 25
    Soltani S & Lo SK. How safe is endoscopic pancreatic sphincterotomy? Gastrointest Endosc 1996; 43: 413 413(Abstract).
  • 26
    Pasricha PJ, Miskovsky EP, Kalloo AN. Intrasphincteric injection of botulinum toxin for suspected sphincter of Oddi dysfunction. Gut 1994; 35: 1319 21.
  • 27
    Wehrmann T, Seifert H, Seipp M, et al. Endoscopic injection of botulinum toxin for biliary sphincter of Oddi dysfunction. Endoscopy 1998; 30: 702 7.
  • 28
    Wehrmann T, Kokabpick S, Caspary WF, et al. Efficacy and safety of intravenous propofol sedation during routine ERCP—a prospective, controlled study. Gastrointest Endosc 1999; 49: 677 83.
  • 29
    Cotton PB, Lehman GA, Vennes J, et al. Endoscopic sphincterotomy complications and their management. An attempt at consensus. Gastrointest Endosc 1991; 37: 383 93.
  • 30
    Tarnasky PR, Palesch Y, Cunningham JT, et al. Pancreatic stenting prevents pancreatitis after biliary sphincterotomy in patients with sphincter of Oddi dysfunction. Gastroenterology 1998; 115: 1518 24.
  • 31
    Warshaw AL, Simeone J, Schapiro RH, et al. Objective evaluation of ampullary stenosis with ultrasonography and pancreatic stimulation. Am J Surg 1985; 149: 56 78.
  • 32
    Glaser J, Högemann B, Schneider M, et al. Significance of a sonographic secretin test in the diagnosis of pancreatic disease. Scand J Gastroenterol 1989; 24: 179 85.
  • 33
    DiFrancesco V, Brunori MP, Rigo L, et al. Comparison of ultrasound-secretin test and sphincter of Oddi manometry in patients with recurrent acute pancreatitis. Dig Dis Sci 1999; 44: 336 40.
  • 34
    Kalayci C, Choudari CP, Sherman S, et al. Correlation of secertin stimulated MRCP findings with sphincter of Oddi manometry. Gastrointest Endosc 1999; 49: A79 A79 (Abstract).
  • 35
    Patel R, Nelles SE, Farber JM, et al. Is MRCP with secretin useful in the diagnosis of pancreatic sphincter hypertension? Gastrointest Endosc 1999; 49: A81 A81(Abstract).
  • 36
    McCarthy J, Geenen JE, Hogan WJ. Preliminary experience with endoscopic stent placement in benign pancreatic disease. Gastrointest Endosc 1988; 34: 16 8.
  • 37
    Dressel TD, Goodale J, Hinninghake DB, et al. Sensitivity of the canine pancreatic intraductal pressure to subclinical reduction in cholinesterase activity. Ann Surg 1979; 190: 6 10.
  • 38
    Noaves G, Cabral AP, De Falco CN, et al. Acute pancreatitis induced by scorpion toxin, tityustoxin. Histopathological study in rats. Arq Gastroenterol 1989; 26: 9 12.
  • 39
    Wehrmann T, Schmitt Th, Seifert H. Endoscopic botulinum toxin injection for treatment of idiopathic recurrent pancreatitis in patients with pancreas divisum. Gastrointest Endosc 1999; 50: 545 8.
  • 40
    Pasricha PJ, Rai R, Ravich WJ, et al. Botulinum toxin for achalasia: long-term follow-up and predictors of outcome. Gastroenterology 1996; 110: 1410 5.
  • 41
    Fishman VM, Parkman HP, Schiano ThD, et al. Symptomatic improvement in achalasia after botulinum toxin injection of the lower esophageal sphincter. Am J Gastroenterol 1996; 91: 1724 30.
  • 42
    Culilliere C, Ducrotte P, Zerbib F, et al. Achalasia: Outcome of patients treated with intrasphincteric injection of botulinum toxin. Gut 1997; 41: 87 92.
  • 43
    Gordon JM & Eaker EY. Prospective study of esophageal botulinum toxin injection in high-risk achalasia patients. Am J Gastroenterol 1997; 10: 1812 7.
  • 44
    Wehrmann T, Kokabpick H, Jacobi V, et al. Long-term results of endoscopic injection of botulinum toxin in elderly achalasic patients with tortuous megaesophagus or epiphrenic diverticulum. Endoscopy 1999; 31: 352 8.
  • 45
    Maria G, Cassetta E, Gui D, et al. A comparison of botulinum toxin and saline for the treatment of chronic anal fissure. N Engl J Med 1998; 338: 217 20.
  • 46
    Horgan S, Hudda K, Eubanks T, et al. Does botulinum toxin make esophagomyotomy a more difficult operation? Surg Endosc 1999; 13: 576 9.