ArticleDigestive diseases and sciences2011
Prophylactic pancreatic stents: does size matter? A comparison of 4-Fr and 5-Fr stents in reference to post-ERCP pancreatitis and migration rate.
Article in Digestive diseases and sciences, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed, 30 citations in OpenAlex.
- Predicting retention and rethinking removal of pancreatic duct stents with a standardized protocol: a United Statesbased retrospective study.Clinical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Practices and Perspectives on Prophylactic Pancreatic Stent Removal Practice: The PIRATE Survey.Endoscopy international open · 2026Article
- A case of pancreatic fistula with disruption of the inferior branch of the pancreatic duct caused by a pancreatic stent after endoscopic papillectomy.Clinical journal of gastroenterology · 2025Article
- The feasibility of pancreatic duct stenting using a novel 4-Fr plastic stent with a 0.025-in. guidewire.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Triaging advanced GI endoscopy procedures during the COVID-19 pandemic: consensus recommendations using the Delphi method.Gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2020Article
- Pancreatic stenting to prevent post-ERCP pancreatitis: a randomized multicenter trial.Endoscopy international open · 2019Article
- Pancreatic stents for the prevention of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis should be inserted up to the pancreatic body or tail.World journal of gastroenterology · 2018Article
- The impact of prophylactic pancreatic stenting on post-ERCP pancreatitis: A nationwide, register-based study.United European gastroenterology journal · 2017Article
- Endoscopic retrieval technique of proximally migrated pancreatic stents: a retrospective study in a tertiary centre.Gastroenterology research and practice · 2015Article
- Complications of ERCP.Indian journal of gastroenterology : official journal of the Indian Society of Gastroenterology · 2014Article
- Prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis.Current gastroenterology reports · 2013Review
- Complications of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: how to avoid and manage them.Gastroenterology & hepatology · 2013Article
- Letter in response to the recently published study: prophylactic pancreatic stents: does size matter? A comparison of 4-Fr and 5-Fr stents in reference to post-ERCP pancreatitis and migration rate.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsThe ideal pancreatic stent to prevent post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) has yet to be determined. The aim of our study was to assess the relative benefit of 4-Fr versus 5-Fr stents in a population at high risk for post-ERCP pancreatitis, and the relative frequency of spontaneous migration. PATIENTS AND
methodsAll patients with prophylactic pancreatic stent (PPS) from 2002 to 2009 were reviewed. Patients were classified into two groups according to stent size and compared based on outcome; spontaneous migration or endoscopic removal.
resultsA total of 346 PPS were placed in 308 patients (224 women, 84 men). The average age was 48.9 years. The most common indication for PPS was sphincter of Oddi dysfunction. Needle knife papillotomy was the most common procedure performed. Forty-seven patients had PEP, 4 Fr (14.6%) and 5 Fr (12.9%), with only one case of severe pancreatitis. Factors associated with higher rates PEP were younger age and pancreatic sphincterotomy. Complete follow-up was not available in 37 patients. Spontaneous migration was demonstrated in 115 of the 4 Fr (95.8%) and 134 of the 5 Fr (68.7%). The remaining 66 (five from the 4 Fr and 61 from the 5 Fr), were removed by endoscopy. The mean delay to demonstrate spontaneous migration was 34.2 days.
conclusionsPPS in high-risk patients reduced the risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis and nearly eliminated severe pancreatitis. No significant difference between the 4 Fr and 5 Fr in reduction of post-ERCP pancreatitis was observed. However, spontaneous migration was more frequent with the 4-Fr stent.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.