Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33037491›Full record

ArticleSurgical endoscopy2021

Cannulation procedure optimization for patients with duodenal papillary tumors.

Junbo Hong, Honogtao Zhu, Wei Zuo, Liang Zhu, Xiaodong Zhou, Xiaojiang Zhou, Guohua Li, Zhijian Liu, Pi Liu, Hao Zhen and 8 more

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact, top 80% 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

0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

18 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Junbo HongDepartment of Gastroenterology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, 17 Yongwai Zheng Street, Nanchang, 330006, Jiangxi, China.
Honogtao ZhuDigestive Endoscopy Center, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, Nanchang, Jiangxi, China.
Wei ZuoDepartment of Respiratory Medicine, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, Nanchang, Jiangxi, China.
Liang ZhuDepartment of Gastroenterology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, 17 Yongwai Zheng Street, Nanchang, 330006, Jiangxi, China.
Xiaodong ZhouDepartment of Gastroenterology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, 17 Yongwai Zheng Street, Nanchang, 330006, Jiangxi, China.
Xiaojiang ZhouDepartment of Gastroenterology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, 17 Yongwai Zheng Street, Nanchang, 330006, Jiangxi, China.
Guohua LiDepartment of Gastroenterology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, 17 Yongwai Zheng Street, Nanchang, 330006, Jiangxi, China.
Zhijian LiuDepartment of Gastroenterology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, 17 Yongwai Zheng Street, Nanchang, 330006, Jiangxi, China.
Pi LiuDepartment of Gastroenterology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, 17 Yongwai Zheng Street, Nanchang, 330006, Jiangxi, China.
Hao ZhenDepartment of Gastroenterology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, 17 Yongwai Zheng Street, Nanchang, 330006, Jiangxi, China.
Yong ZhuDepartment of Gastroenterology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, 17 Yongwai Zheng Street, Nanchang, 330006, Jiangxi, China.
Anjiang WangDepartment of Gastroenterology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, 17 Yongwai Zheng Street, Nanchang, 330006, Jiangxi, China.
Jiuhong MaDigestive Endoscopy Center, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, Nanchang, Jiangxi, China.
Jianhui YuanDepartment of Anesthesiology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, Nanchang, Jiangxi, China.
Xu ShuDepartment of Gastroenterology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, 17 Yongwai Zheng Street, Nanchang, 330006, Jiangxi, China.
Yin ZhuDepartment of Gastroenterology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, 17 Yongwai Zheng Street, Nanchang, 330006, Jiangxi, China.
Nonghua LuDepartment of Gastroenterology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, 17 Yongwai Zheng Street, Nanchang, 330006, Jiangxi, China.
Youxiang ChenDepartment of Gastroenterology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, 17 Yongwai Zheng Street, Nanchang, 330006, Jiangxi, China. chenyouxiang102@163.com.ORCID 0000-0002-5744-1312
Nanchang University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe goal of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of needle-knife fistulotomy (NKF) to that of conventional cannulation methods (CCMs) when used for primary biliary access in patients with duodenal papillary tumors.

methodsConsecutive patients who had duodenal papillary tumors and who underwent endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) were retrospectively enrolled. Successful cannulation rates, cannulation and procedure times, and the prevalence of adverse events were compared between the NKF and CCM groups.

resultsA total of 404 patients (NKF, n = 124; CCM, n = 280) with duodenal papillary tumors were included. The primary and overall cannulation rates were 92.1% (372/404) and 96.0% (388/404), respectively. Compared to CCMs, NKF was associated with a significantly higher successful cannulation rate (99.2% versus 88.9%, P < 0.001) and significantly lower cannulation times (2.1 ± 2.0 min versus 4.7 ± 5.2 min), procedure times (8.8 ± 3.8 min versus 12.9 ± 7.6 min), and unintentional pancreatic duct cannulation rates (1.6% versus 20%), with P < 0.001 for all. Overall adverse events occurred less frequently in the NKF group (3.2% versus 10.7%, P = 0.011). Of these adverse events, post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) was significantly lower in the NKF group than in the CCM group (1.6% versus 6.8%, P = 0.03). Bleeding and cholangitis rarely occurred with either cannulation method (0.8% versus 2.1%, P = 0.681, and 0.8% versus 1.7%, P = 0.671, respectively).

conclusionNKF is a more effective and safer procedure than CCMs for patients with duodenal papillary tumors.

Indexed as

Duodenal NeoplasmsSphincterotomy, EndoscopicCatheterizationCholangiopancreatography, Endoscopic RetrogradeHumansRetrospective StudiesConventional cannulation methodsDuodenal papillary tumorERCPNeedle-knife fistulotomy

Identifiers

PMID33037491
OpenAlexW3092492778

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.