Trial reportThe Korean journal of gastroenterology = Taehan Sohwagi Hakhoe chi2022
[Comparison of Clinical Performance and Safety between Domestic New Pull-type Triple-lumen Sphincterotome and Conventional Sphincterotome: A Prospective Multicenter Trial].
Trial report in The Korean journal of gastroenterology = Taehan Sohwagi Hakhoe chi, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
aimsSphincterotomes are essential for endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) and can also be used for cannulation in ERCP. A domestic new pull-type sphincterotome (Optimos™, Taewoong, Goyang, Korea) provides acceptable technical feasibility and safety, but there are no comparison results. Thus, this study compared the clinical performance and safety of Optimos™ sphincterotome to a conventional sphincterotome (CleverCut3™, Olympus, Tokyo, Japan) in patients who underwent ERCP.
methodsFrom April 2021 to July 2021, a randomized prospective comparative study was conducted on 104 consecutive patients who underwent ERCP in three medical centers. The primary endpoint was the clinical performance and safety of sphincterotomes during ERCP.
resultsOne hundred and four patients were assigned randomly to the Optimos™ group (n=51) or CleverCut3™ group (n=53). All demographic characteristics did not differ between the groups except the BMI. The technical success rate for cannulation, performance of EST, and total procedure time were similar in the two groups. The adverse events did not differ, even though two cases of post-ERCP pancreatitis occurred in CleverCut3™. On the other hand, in questionnaire analysis, CleverCut™ showed a better user's convenience (median [interquartile range] 4.0 [3.0-4.0] vs. 3.0 [3.0-4.0], p=0.013) and manipulability (median [interquartile range], 4.0 [3.0-4.0] vs. 3.0 [3.0-4.0], p=0.039) than Optimos™, even though the other profiles did not reveal any differences.
conclusionsNew domestic pull-type sphincterotome can offer comparable clinical performance and safety profiles to conventional sphincterotome, but it needs refinements to increase the user's convenience and manipulability. Further improvement and innovation will be required to advance domestic medical devices.
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.