ArticleScientific reports2021
Long-term outcomes after endoscopic retrograde pancreatic drainage for symptomatic pancreaticojejunal anastomotic stenosis.
Article in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
There is limited evidence supporting the usefulness of endoscopic retrograde pancreatic drainage (ERPD) for symptomatic pancreaticojejunal anastomotic stenosis (sPJS). We examined the usefulness of ERPD for sPJS. We conducted a retrospective analysis of 10 benign sPJS patients. A forward-viewing endoscope was used in all sessions. Following items were evaluated: technical success, adverse events, and clinical outcome of ERPD. The technical success rate was 100% (10/10) in initial ERPD; 9 patients had a pancreatic stent (no-internal-flap: n = 4, internal-flap: n = 5). The median follow-up was 920 days. Four patients developed recurrence. Among them, 3 had a stent with no-internal-flap in initial ERPD, the stent migrated in 3 at recurrence, and a stent was not placed in 1 patient in initial ERPD. Four follow-up interventions were performed. No recurrence was observed in 6 patients. None of the stents migrated (no-internal-flap: n = 1, internal-flap: n = 5) and no stents were replaced due to stent failure. Stenting with no-internal-flap was associated with recurrence (p = 0.042). Mild adverse events developed in 14.3% (2/14). In conclusions, ERPD was performed safely with high technical success. Recurrence was common after stenting with no-internal-flap. Long-term stenting did not result in stent failure.Clinical trial register and their clinical registration number: Nos. 58-115 and R2-9.
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.