# New Method of Papillectomy May Decrease Recurrence: Anchoring Method versus Conventional Method

## TL;DR

A new anchoring method for endoscopic papillectomy shows better results in reducing tumor recurrence and improving resection rates compared to the conventional method.

## Contribution

The study introduces and evaluates a novel anchoring method for endoscopic papillectomy with promising clinical outcomes.

## Key findings

- A-EP had higher en bloc resection rates (95.2% vs. 78.4%) compared to C-EP.
- The A-EP group had a significantly lower recurrence rate (8.1% vs. 37.8%).
- A-EP showed a trend toward fewer complications like pancreatitis and duct stricture.

## Abstract

Background/Objectives: Endoscopic papillectomy (EP) is the preferred treatment for ampullary tumors because it has fewer side effects than surgical removal. This study retrospectively compared a new anchoring EP method (A-EP) with the conventional (C-EP) approach. Methods: Ninety-nine patients who underwent EP at a single medical institution between 2009 and 2021 were retrospectively reviewed. In all patients, the indications for EP were pathological adenoma with <10 mm of biliary invasion and a tumor diameter <30 mm on endoscopic ultrasonography. The exclusion criteria were antiplatelet/anticoagulant use, previous upper GI surgery, or prior biliary/pancreatic endoscopic therapy. One expert endoscopist performed the two types of EPs, A-EP and C-EP. Results: Sixty-two patients underwent A-EP, and 37 underwent C-EP. There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics, such as sex, age, tumor size, and ductal invasion on endoscopic ultrasound. The A-EP group had higher en bloc resection rates (95.2% vs. 78.4%, p = 0.010). Although the difference was not statistically significant, it tended towards fewer incidences of pancreatitis (p = 0.081) and duct stricture (p = 0.081). The recurrence rate was lower in the A-EP group (8.1% vs. 37.8%, p = 0.000). There were no significant differences between the two groups regarding the follow-up period (A-EP vs. C-EP, 725 vs. 1045 days, p = 0.109) or the days of recurrence (A-EP vs. C-EP, 341 vs. 562 days, p = 0.551). Conclusions: A-EP showed better outcomes than C-EP in terms of en bloc resection and recurrence rates, providing evidence for the efficacy of this novel EP method.