Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35277769›Full record

ArticleSurgical endoscopy2022

Single-operator peroral pancreatoscopy in the preoperative diagnostics of suspected main duct intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms: efficacy and novel insights on complications.

Sini Vehviläinen, Niklas Fagerström, Roberto Valente, Hanna Seppänen, Marianne Udd, Outi Lindström, Harri Mustonen, Fredrik Swahn, Urban Arnelo, Leena Kylänpää

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 19% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Pancreatoscopy in the evaluation and management of pancreatic disorders.World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2025
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Changes in Pancreatic Senescence Mediate Pancreatic Diseases.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023
    Review
  9. Review
  10. Modern aspects of the management of pancreatic intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms: a narrative review.Romanian journal of morphology and embryology = Revue roumaine de morphologie et embryologie
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Sini VehviläinenDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4892-1867
Niklas FagerströmDepartment of Upper GI Diseases, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden.
Roberto ValenteClinical Science, Intervention and Technology (CLINTEC), Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden.
Hanna SeppänenDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland.
Marianne UddDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland.
Outi LindströmDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland.
Harri MustonenDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland.
Fredrik SwahnDepartment of Surgery, Skåne University Hospital, Lund, Sweden.
Urban ArneloClinical Science, Intervention and Technology (CLINTEC), Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden. urban.arnelo@regionvasterbotten.se.
Leena KylänpääDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland.
University of Helsinki · FIKarolinska Institutet · SEKarolinska University Hospital · SESkåne University Hospital · SE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDistinguishing intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (IPMNs) from other pancreatic cystic lesions is essential since IPMNs carry the risk of becoming malignant. Differentiating the main pancreatic duct involving IPMNs (MD-IPMNs) through conventional imaging is deficient. Single-operator peroral pancreatoscopy (SOPP) represents a promising method offering additional information on suspected lesions in the pancreatic main duct (MD). We aimed to determine the role of SOPP in the preoperative diagnostics of suspected MD-IPMNs and identify factors contributing to SOPP-related complications. MATERIALS AND

methodsIn this primarily retrospective study, SOPPs were performed at three high-volume centers on suspected MD-IPMNs. Primary outcome was the clinical impact of SOPP to subsequent patient care. Additionally, we documented post-SOPP complications and analyzed several assumed patient- and procedure-related risk factors.

resultsOne hundred and one (101) SOPPs were performed. Subsequent clinical management was affected due to the findings in 86 (85%) cases. Surgery was planned for 29 (29%) patients. A condition other than IPMN explaining MD dilatation was found in 28 (28%) cases. In 35 (35%) cases, follow-up with MRI was continued. Post-SOPP pancreatitis occurred in 20 (20%) patients and one of them was fatal. A decrease in odds of post-SOPP pancreatitis was seen as the MD diameter increases (OR 0.714 for 1.0 mm increase in MD diameter, CI 95% 0.514-0.993, p = 0.045). Furthermore, a correlation between lower MD diameter values and higher severity post-SOPP pancreatitis was seen (T

conclusionSOPP aids clinical decision-making in suspected MD-IPMNs. Risk for post-SOPP pancreatitis is not negligible compared to non-invasive imaging methods. The risk for pancreatitis decreases as the diameter of the MD increases.

Indexed as

Adenocarcinoma, MucinousCarcinoma, Pancreatic DuctalPancreatic NeoplasmsPancreatitisHumansPancreatic DuctsRetrospective StudiesIPMNPancreatitisPost-ERCP pancreatitisSingle-operator pancreatoscopy

Identifiers

PMID35277769
PMCPMC9485081
OpenAlexW4220912726

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.