ArticleDigestive endoscopy : official journal of the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society2022
Comparison of radiation exposure between endoscopic ultrasound-guided drainage and transpapillary drainage by endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography for pancreatobiliary diseases.
Article in Digestive endoscopy : official journal of the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Impact of a patient fixation device on healthcare worker radiation doses in fluoroscopy-assisted endoscopy.Radiation protection dosimetry · 2025Article
- Contribution of Endoscopy in the Diagnosis and Treatment of Patients With Primary Sclerosing Cholangitis.Digestive endoscopy : official journal of the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society · 2025Article
- Assessment of endoscopic ultrasound-guided hepaticogastrostomy as a feasible option for preoperative biliary drainage before pancreaticoduodenectomy.Clinical endoscopy · 2025Article
- Defining standards for fluoroscopy in gastrointestinal endoscopy using Delphi methodology.Endoscopy international open · 2024Article
- Low-dose pulsed vs standard pulsed fluoroscopy during ERCP to reduce radiation without change in image quality: Prospective randomized study.Endoscopy international open · 2024Article
- Hepaticogastrostomy versus hepaticogastrostomy with antegrade stenting for malignant biliary obstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Therapeutic advances in gastroenterology · 2024Article
- Role of radiofrequency ablation in advanced malignant hilar biliary obstruction.Clinical endoscopy · 2023Review
- Radiation exposure during modern therapeutic endoscopic ultrasound procedures and standard alternatives.Endoscopy international open · 2022Article
- How should radiation exposure be handled in fluoroscopy-guided endoscopic procedures in the field of gastroenterology?Digestive endoscopy : official journal of the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society · 2022Review
- The radiation doses and radiation protection on the endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography procedures.The British journal of radiology · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe transpapillary drainage by endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP-D) cannot be performed without fluoroscopy, and there are many situations in which fluoroscopy is required even in endoscopic ultrasound-guided drainage (EUS-D). Previous studies have compared the efficacy, but not the radiation exposure of EUS-D and ERCP-D. While radiation exposure in ERCP-D has been previously evaluated, there is a paucity of information regarding radiation doses in EUS-D. This study aimed to assess radiation exposure in EUS-D compared with that in ERCP-D.
methodsThis retrospective single-center cohort study included consecutive patients who underwent EUS-D and ERCP-D between October 2017 and March 2019. The air kerma (AK, mGy), kerma-area product (KAP, Gycm
resultsWe enrolled 372 and 105 patients who underwent ERCP-D and EUS-D, respectively. The mean AK, KAP, and FT in the EUS-D group were higher by 53%, 28%, and 27%, respectively, than those in the ERCP-D group, whereas PT was shorter by approximately 11% (AK, 135.0 vs. 88.4; KAP, 28.1 vs. 21.9; FT, 20.4 vs. 16.0; PT, 38.7 vs. 43.5). The sub-analysis limited to biliary drainage cases showed the same trend (AK, 128.3 vs. 90.9; KAP, 27.0 vs. 22.2; FT, 16.4 vs. 16.1; PT, 32.5 vs. 44.4).
conclusionsThis is the first study to assess radiation exposure in EUS-D compared with that in ERCP-D. Radiation exposure was significantly higher in EUS-D than in ERCP-D, despite the shorter procedure time.
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.