Does ERCP position matter? A randomized controlled trial comparing efficacy and complications of left lateral versus prone position (POSITION study)

Background and study aims  Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is traditionally performed with patients in the prone position (PP). However, this poses a potentially increased risk of anesthetic complications. An alternative is the left lateral (LL) decubitus position, which is commonly used for endoscopic procedures. Our aim was to compare cannulation rate, time, and outcomes in ERCP performed in LL versus PP. Patients and methods  We conducted a non-inferiority, prospective, randomized control trial with 1:1 randomization to either LL or PP position. Patients > 18 years of age with native papillae requiring a therapeutic ERCP were recruited between March 2017 and November 2018 in a single tertiary center. Results  A total of 253 patients were randomized; 132 to LL (52.2 %) and 121 to PP (47.8 %). Cannulation rates were 97.0 % in LL vs 99.2 % in PP (difference -2.2 % (one-sided 95 % CI: -5 % to 0.6 %). Median time to biliary cannulation was 03:50 minutes in LL vs 02:57 minutes in PP ( P  = 0.62). Pancreatitis rates were 2.3 % in LL vs 5.8 % in PP ( P  = 0.20). There were significantly lower radiation doses used in PP (0.23 mGy/m ² in LL vs 0.16 mGy/m ² in PP, P  = 0.008) without a difference in fluoroscopy times. Conclusions  Our analysis comparing LL to PP during ERCP shows comparable procedural and anesthetic outcomes, with significantly lower radiation exposure when performed in PP. We conclude that ERCP undertaken in the LL position is not inferior to PP, except for higher radiation exposure, and should be considered as a safe alternate position for patients undergoing ERCP.

Patient Positioning Guidelines for Gastrointestinal Endoscopic Procedures

Patient positioning during gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures has received minimal attention compared with surgical procedures performed in the surgical setting. However, prolonged endoscopic interventions on patients and the increasing requirement for general anesthesia have changed to need for patient positioning guidelines. The objective of this study was to test whether patient positioning guidelines for surgical procedures in surgical suites are suitable for gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures without negatively impacting safety and procedure duration. This was an observational feasibility study with volunteers of different body mass index categories. Volunteers were positioned in supine, lateral, and prone positions on an operating table and thereafter on an endoscopy stretcher and asked for comfort levels. Except for arm and head positioning in lateral and prone positions, it was possible to replicate the patient positioning guidelines. Alternative options were explored for the positioning of arms and head to optimize oral access. Besides minor adjustments, we were able to replicate the positioning guidelines and adhere to pressure and nerve injury prevention guidelines. Concept endoscopic patient positioning guidelines were developed. It is recommended to review the "swimmer's" position. Endoscopic patient positioning guidelines should become part of the National Practice Standards and education curriculum of endoscopy nurses.

The difference in ocular lens equivalent dose to ERCP personnel between prone and left lateral decubitus positions: a prospective randomized study

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

 Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is commonly performed in a prone or left lateral decubitus (LLD) position. The ocular lens equivalent doses between the two positions may be different because in the LLD position the tube voltage will automatically increase to maintain the image quality, and the increased distance between the image intensifier and the X-ray tube may result in more scattered radiation. We aimed to compare the ocular lens equivalent doses of ERCP personnel between the two different positions.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

 Fifty-five patients with ERCP indications were randomized to either prone or LLD positions. One patient in an LLD position was excluded due to technical reasons. Indications for ERCP, patients' vertical thicknesses, fluoroscopy parameters, patients' skin dose rates, and the ocular-lens equivalent doses of ERCP personnel were compared.

RESULTS

 Baseline characteristics were no different except for vertical thickness, which was significantly higher in the LLD group. The ocular lens equivalent doses (prone vs. LLD) of the primary endoscopist (19.2 vs. 30.7 µSv, P  = 0.035), and the nurse anesthetist (17.3 vs. 42.2 µSv, P  = 0.002) were significantly lower in the prone group than in the LLD group. The calculated annual number of procedures not to exceed the exposure allowance in prone and LLD positions were 1,042 and 651 procedures for the primary endoscopist and 1,157 and 473 procedures for the nurse anesthetist, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

 Ocular-radiation exposure to ERCP personnel was one-third lower in the prone than in LLD position. Therefore, more annual ERCPs could be performed by the personnel.