Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32719239›Full record

ArticleSaudi journal of gastroenterology : official journal of the Saudi Gastroenterology Association2020

Evaluation of the safety and efficacy of minimal endoscopic sphincterotomy followed by papillary balloon dilation for the removal of common bile duct stones.

Shigeto Ishii, Toshio Fujisawa, Mako Ushio, Sho Takahashi, Wataru Yamagata, Yusuke Takasaki, Akinori Suzuki, Yoshihiro Okawa, Kazushige Ochiai, Ko Tomishima and 4 more

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Saudi journal of gastroenterology : official journal of the Saudi Gastroenterology Association, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 22% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Shigeto IshiiDepartment of Gastroenterology, Juntendo University Graduate School of Medicine, Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, Japan.
Toshio FujisawaDepartment of Gastroenterology, Juntendo University Graduate School of Medicine, Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, Japan.
Mako UshioDepartment of Gastroenterology, Juntendo University Graduate School of Medicine, Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, Japan.
Sho TakahashiDepartment of Gastroenterology, Juntendo University Graduate School of Medicine, Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, Japan.
Wataru YamagataDepartment of Gastroenterology, Juntendo University Graduate School of Medicine, Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, Japan.
Yusuke TakasakiDepartment of Gastroenterology, Juntendo University Graduate School of Medicine, Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, Japan.
Akinori SuzukiDepartment of Gastroenterology, Juntendo University Graduate School of Medicine, Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, Japan.
Yoshihiro OkawaDepartment of Gastroenterology, Juntendo University Graduate School of Medicine, Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, Japan.
Kazushige OchiaiDepartment of Gastroenterology, Juntendo University Graduate School of Medicine, Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, Japan.
Ko TomishimaDepartment of Gastroenterology, Juntendo University Graduate School of Medicine, Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, Japan.
Ryo KanazawaDepartment of Gastroenterology, Juntendo University Graduate School of Medicine, Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, Japan.
Hiroaki SaitoDepartment of Gastroenterology, Juntendo University Graduate School of Medicine, Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, Japan.
Shuichiro ShiinaDepartment of Gastroenterology, Juntendo University Graduate School of Medicine, Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, Japan.
Hiroyuki IsayamaDepartment of Gastroenterology, Juntendo University Graduate School of Medicine, Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, Japan.
Juntendo University · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND/

aimA sufficiently open papilla is needed to remove common bile duct stones (CBDS) but endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) requires a high level of skill and is difficult with endoscopic papillary balloon dilation (EPBD). The main adverse event of EST is bleeding and perforation and that of EPBD is post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis. To reduce these adverse events we employed minimal EST followed by papillary dilation (ESBD), and retrospectively evaluated its efficacy and safety compared with EST. PATIENTS AND

methodsCBDS patients who underwent EST (n = 114) or ESBD (n = 321) at Juntendo University Hospital from January 2009 to December 2018 were consecutively enrolled, retrospectively. The exclusion criteria were large-balloon dilation (≥ 12 mm), large CBDS (>12 mm), and previous EST/EPBD. We compared the overall stone removal rate, incidence of adverse event, procedure time, number of ERCP procedures, and rate of mechanical lithotripsy (ML) between the two groups.

resultsComplete stone removal was successful in both ESBD and EST group. However, the rate of multiple ERCP sessions was significantly lower (35.1% vs. 12.8%, P < 0.001), procedure time was shorter (31.6 vs. 25.8 min, P = 0.01), and rate of ML was lower (16.7% vs. 7.8%, P = 0.01) in ESBD group. Bleeding was significantly more frequent in the EST group (9.6% vs. 1.2%, P < 0.001), particularly acute bleeding (7.9% vs. 0.9%, P < 0.001).

conclusionsESBD is more efficient and safer in the management of CBD stones than EST. A prospective randomized study comparing ESBD with EST is needed to establish this combination technique.

Indexed as

Bleedingcommon bile duct stonesendoscopic papillary balloon dilationendoscopic sphincterotomypost-ERCP pancreatitis

Identifiers

PMID32719239
PMCPMC8019135
OpenAlexW3044919822

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.