ArticleSurgical endoscopy2022
A comparative study between single-operator pancreatoscopy with intraductal lithotripsy and extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for the management of large main pancreatic duct stones.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05475782 (Spyglass-guided Lithotripsy Vs ESWL for Pancreatic Duct Stones), which is not on this map. Cited by 12 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Spyglass-guided Lithotripsy Vs ESWL for Pancreatic Duct Stones
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- FIRST BRAZILIAN CONSENSUS ON CHOLANGIOPANCREATOSCOPY BY THE BRAZILIAN SOCIETY OF DIGESTIVE ENDOSCOPY (SOBED).Arquivos de gastroenterologia · 2026Guideline
- Per-oral Pancreatoscopy-Guided Lithotripsy Versus Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy in Pancreatic Stone: A Meta-Analysis.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2025Pooled it
- Pancreatoscopy-Guided Lithotripsy for Pancreatic Duct Stones: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.The Turkish journal of gastroenterology : the official journal of Turkish Society of Gastroenterology · 2024Pooled it
- Predictors of Treatment Outcomes and Limitations of Peroral Pancreatoscopy-Guided Electrohydraulic Lithotripsy for Pancreatic Duct Stones.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2026Article
- Systematic Approach to Treatment of Chronic Pancreatitis.Gastroenterology & hepatology · 2026Article
- Innovations in pain management in patients with chronic pancreatitis.iGIE : innovation, investigation and insights · 2025Article
- The risk factors affecting effect of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for pancreatic duct stones.BMC gastroenterology · 2025Article
- Pancreatic extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: a key technology truly improves treatment model for pancreatic stones.Medical review (2021) · 2024Review
- Peroral Pancreatoscopy-Guided Lithotripsy Compared with Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy in the Management of Pancreatic Duct Stones in Chronic Pancreatitis: A Multicenter Retrospective Cohort Study.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Timing of ERCP after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for large main pancreatic duct stones.Surgical endoscopy · 2023Article
- Electrohydraulic lithotripsy through endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography combined with SpyGlass in the treatment of complex pancreatic duct stones: A case report and literature review.Frontiers in surgery · 2023Article
- Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for pancreatic duct stones in patients with chronic pancreatitis: Are we underutilizing a new technology?Canadian journal of surgery. Journal canadien de chirurgieArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsEndoscopic management of large main pancreatic ductal (MPD) stones often require treatment with lithotripsy. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) has been the mainstay therapy, and single-operator pancreatoscopy with intraductal (intracorporeal) lithotripsy (SOPIL) is an emerging technique. However, no comparative studies between these techniques exist. We therefore aimed to compare ESWL to SOPIL for the treatment of large MPD stones.
methodsThis is a retrospective cohort study comparing patients who were treated with ESWL or SOPIL from September 2013 to September 2019 at a single tertiary center. Logistic regression was performed to identify factors associated with technical success and efficient stone clearance (≤ 2 procedures to clear stones).
resultsThere were 240 patients who were treated with ESWL and 18 treated with SOPIL. The overall technical success rate of stone clearance was 224/258 (86.8%), which was similar between the ESWL and SOPIL groups (86.7% vs 88.9%, p = 1.000). A SOPIL approach required fewer total procedures (1.6 ± 0.6 vs 3.1 ± 1.5, p < 0.001) and less aggregate procedure time (101.6 ± 68.2 vs 191.8 ± 111.6 min, p = 0.001). Adverse event rates were similar between the groups (6.3% vs 5.6%, p = 1.000). The use of SOPIL was independently associated with greater efficiency compared to ESWL (OR 5.241 [1.348-20.369], p = 0.017). Stone size > 10 mm was associated with less efficient stone clearance (OR 0.484 [0.256-0.912], p = 0.025).
conclusionBoth ESWL and SOPIL are safe and effective endoscopic adjunct modalities for treating large pancreatic duct stones. SOPIL is an emerging alternative to ESWL that is potentially more efficient for lithotripsy and MPD stone clearance.
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.