Background and Aim The usefulness of preventive closure of the frenulum after endoscopic papillectomy (EP) could reduce bleeding. The feasibility and safety of clipping were evaluated in this prospective pilot study. Methods This study involved 40 consecutive patients who underwent preventive closure of the frenulum by clipping just after EP. The outcome data were compared with those of the previous 40 patients in whom no preemptive closure had been performed (no‐closure group) (UMIN000014783). Additionally, the bleeding sites were examined. Results The clipping procedure was successful in all patients. As compared to the no‐closure group, the rate of bleeding (P = 0.026) and period of hospital stay (P < 0.001) were significantly reduced in the closure group. There was no difference in the procedure time between the two groups. Furthermore, the incidence rates of pancreatitis and perforation were comparable in the two groups. The bleeding was noted in the frenulum area rather than at any other site in 90.9% of cases. Conclusion Preventive closure of the frenulum after EP is an effective, safe, rational, and economical method to reduce the incidence of delayed bleeding, without prolonging the procedure time or increasing the risk of post‐procedure pancreatitis perforation.

A pancreatic paraganglioma is a rare neoplasm that is difficult to distinguish from a pancreatic neuroendocrine tumour. Here we present a case of pancreatic paraganglioma that was surgically resected following preoperative diagnosis of a pancreatic neuroendocrine tumour. Careful evaluation of the endoscopic ultrasonography findings revealed abundant draining vessels, which could have led to a correct preoperative diagnosis of pancreatic paraganglioma.

Endoscopic papillary balloon dilatation (EPBD) is useful for decreasing early complications of endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography (ERCP), including bleeding, biliary infection, and perforation, but it is generally avoided in Western countries because of a relatively high reported incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP). However, as the efficacy of endoscopic papillary large-balloon dilatation (EPLBD) becomes widely recognized, EPBD is attracting attention. Here we investigate whether EPBD is truly a risk factor for PEP, and seek safer and more effective EPBD procedures by reviewing past studies. We reviewed thirteen randomised control trials comparing EPBD and endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) and ten studies comparing direct EPLBD and EST. Three randomized controlled trials of EPBD showed significantly higher incidence of PEP than EST, but no study of EPLBD did. Careful analysis of these studies suggested that longer and higher-pressure inflation of balloons might decrease PEP incidence. The paradoxical result that EPBD with small-calibre balloons increases PEP incidence while EPLBD does not may be due to insufficient papillary dilatation in the former. Insufficient dilatation could cause the high incidence of PEP through the use of mechanical lithotripsy and stress on the papilla at the time of stone removal. Sufficient dilation of the papilla may be useful in preventing PEP.

The present study revealed a superiority of 3-cm stents compared with 5-cm stents for prophylactic pancreatic stent. On the basis of the past reports and the result of the present study, we recommend using a 5 Fr, 3-cm unflanged stent.This study was registered on the UMIN Clinical Trial Registry (UMIN000008290).