ArticleClinical journal of gastroenterology2017
Dual drainage using a percutaneous pancreatic duct technique contributed to resolution of severe acute pancreatitis.
Article in Clinical journal of gastroenterology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Management of a postoperative fistula after pancreatic left resection using percutaneous endoscopy-assisted transpapillary pancreatic duct drainage via its stump.VideoGIE : an official video journal of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A 66-year-old man was admitted for severe acute alcoholic pancreatitis with infected pancreatic necrosis (IPN). Abdominal computed tomography revealed an inflamed pancreatic head, a dilated main pancreatic duct (MPD), and a large cavity with heterogeneous fluid containing gas adjacent to the pancreatic head, and extending to the pelvis. The cavity was drained percutaneously near the pancreatic head on admission; another tube was inserted into the pelvic cavity on hospital day 3. The drained fluid contained pus with high amylase concentration. Nasopancreatic drainage tube placement was unsuccessfully attempted on hospital day 9. On hospital day 23, percutaneous puncture of the MPD and placement of a pancreatic duct drainage tube was performed. Pancreatography revealed major extravasation from the pancreatic head. The IPN cavity receded; the percutaneous IPN drainage tube was removed on hospital day 58. On hospital day 83, the pancreatic drainage was changed to a transpapillary pancreatic stent, and the patient was discharged. Measuring the amylase concentration of peripancreatic fluid collections can aid in the diagnosis of pancreatic duct disruption; moreover, dual percutaneous necrotic cavity drainage plus pancreatic duct drainage may be essential for treating IPN. If transpapillary drainage tube placement is difficult, percutaneous pancreatic duct drainage may be feasible.
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.