ArticleScientific reports2021
Propensity score-matched analysis for comparing transpancreatic sphincterotomy and needle-knife precut in difficult biliary cannulation.
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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Early precut is useful for difficult bile duct cannulation, particularly in cases with long oral protrusion.World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2025Article
- Difficult cannulation during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography-needle-knife precut versus transpancreatic sphincterotomy on the basis of successful cannulation and adverse events.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Article
- "Salvage techniques" are the key to overcome difficult biliary cannulation in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography.Scientific reports · 2022Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Transpancreatic sphincterotomy (TPS) can be an alternative approach of difficult biliary access in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of TPS compared to needle-knife precut (NKP), considering the early and late outcomes of both techniques. The prospectively collected clinical data, ERCP procedure findings, and outcomes of patients who underwent ERCP with difficult biliary access in our hospital from July 2016 to January 2018 were retrospectively analyzed. The patients were divided into two groups according to the applied secondary cannulation techniques. The propensity score matching (PSM) was applied to reduce the potential selection bias and unify the preventive measures of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) in both groups. A total of 125 patients were enrolled in this study, with 54.4% male and a mean age of 63.29 ± 16.33 years. NKP group included 82 patients, and 43 patients received TPS. Prophylactic pancreatic stents were placed in all patients with TPS and 58.5% of patients with NKP. After applying PSM, the cohort was comprised to 86 patients with 43 patients in each TPS and NKP groups. Successful selective cannulation was achieved by 95.3% using TPS and by 93% using NKP. The mean procedure time was shorter in the TPS group without significant difference. Compared to NKP, using TPS did not affect the rate of PEP. Moreover, TPS was associated with less frequent post-ERCP bleeding and perforation, but without significant differences (all p > 0.05). Patients who received TPS or NKP had no symptoms related to papillary stenosis or chronic pancreatitis during the follow-up period. In conclusion, using TPS in difficult cannulation cases was useful to achieve success cannulation with an acceptable PEP rate and less frequent post-ERCP bleeding and perforation compared to NKP. There were no symptoms related to papillary stenosis or chronic pancreatitis during the follow-up period.
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.