Trial reportSurgical endoscopy2018
A prospective randomized study of loop-tip versus straight-tip guidewire in wire-guided biliary cannulation.
Trial report in Surgical endoscopy, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04143698 (Randomized Trial Comparing Reusable and Disposable Duodenoscopes for ERCP), which is not on this map. Cited by 4 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.
Randomized Trial Comparing Reusable and Disposable Duodenoscopes for ERCP
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- A novel concept of passive loop-forming wire-guided biliary cannulation using an ultra-deep angled tip guidewire (with video).Endoscopy international open · 2023Article
- Comparison of Two Types of Guidewires for Malignant Hilar Biliary Obstruction by Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography: A Randomized Controlled Trial.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Efficacy of a Newly Developed Guidewire for Selective Biliary Cannulation: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Difficult Biliary Cannulation in Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography: Definitions, Risk Factors, and Implications.European medical journal. Hepatology · 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
10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWire-guided cannulation has been widely accepted as a useful technique for achieving selective biliary access because it has significantly increased the success rate of biliary cannulation compared with conventional contrast-assisted cannulation. Unlike conventional guidewires with a straight tip, a loop-tip guidewire (LGW) has a closed distal loop that may facilitate less traumatic access through the epithelial folds of the intra-duodenal biliary segments. The aim of this study was to compare the performance of a LGW with a straight-tip guidewire (SGW) in achieving successful selective biliary cannulation.
methodsFrom December 2014 to December 2015, we performed 192 wire-guided biliary cannulations for a naïve papilla in a randomized controlled trial. Patients were randomly assigned to the LGW group (n = 96) or the SGW group (n = 96). Our study protocol did not include crossover to the other guidewire arm if randomized wire-guided cannulation proved unsuccessful within the first 10 min.
resultsThere was no significant difference in primary successful biliary cannulation between the two groups (LGW group: 86.5%; SGW group: 77.1%; p = 0.134). The rate and the mean number of unintentional pancreatic duct cannulations during wire-guided biliary cannulation were significantly lower in the LGW group than in the SGW group (LGW group: 14.6%; SGW group: 28.1%; p = 0.034; LGW group: 0.2 ± 0.5; SGW group: 0.6 ± 1.3; p = 0.007). Post-ERCP pancreatitis developed in 5.2% of patients in the LGW group and 8.3% of patients in the SGW group (p = 0.567).
conclusionsThe biliary cannulation rate of the LGW was not significantly different from those of conventional guidewires. Use of the LGW was associated with a lower rate of unintentional pancreatic duct cannulation during wire-guided biliary cannulation than use of the SGW.
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.