ArticleDigestive diseases and sciences2022
Feasibility and Efficacy of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Hepaticogastrostomy Without Dilation: A Propensity Score Matching Analysis.
Article in Digestive diseases and sciences, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Misdeployment of the metal stent during direct endoscopic ultrasound-guided hepaticogastrostomy without tract dilation.Endoscopy · 2026Article
- Article
- Endoscopic ultrasound-guided hepaticogastrostomy without tract dilation using a novel 0.035-inch guidewire.Endoscopy · 2025Article
- Thin Delivery Stents Can Obviate the Need for Additional Fistula Dilatation of Large Diameter in Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Hepaticogastrostomy.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Puncture angle on an endoscopic ultrasound image is independently associated with unsuccessful guidewire manipulation of endoscopic ultrasound-guided hepaticogastrostomy: a retrospective study in Japan.Clinical endoscopy · 2024Article
- Is Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Hepaticogastrostomy Safe and Effective after Failed Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography?-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Article
- Safety of skipping the tract dilation step for EUS-guided biliary drainage in patients with unresectable malignant biliary obstruction (with video).Surgical endoscopy · 2024Article
- Risk factors of early adverse events associated with endoscopic ultrasound-guided hepaticogastrostomy using self-expandable metal stent.Endoscopy international open · 2024Article
- Moving scope technique improves technical success rate of device insertion during EUS-guided hepaticogastrostomy (with video).Therapeutic advances in gastroenterology · 2023Article
- Liver impaction technique improves technical success rate of guidewire insertion during EUS-guided hepaticogastrostomy (with video).Therapeutic advances in gastroenterology · 2023Article
- Prospective clinical trial of EUS-guided choledochoduodenostomy without fistula dilation for malignant distal biliary obstruction.Endoscopic ultrasoundArticle
- Efficacy and safety of EUS-guided hepatogastrostomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Endoscopic ultrasoundArticle
- Clinical outcomes of one-step EUS-guided hepaticogastrostomy using an 8F stent introducer featuring an ultra-tapered metal tip and a preloaded partially covered metal stent (with video).Endoscopic ultrasoundArticle
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
15 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRecently, endoscopic ultrasound-guided hepaticogastrostomy (EUS-HGS) procedures have been gradually established; nonetheless, some adverse events (AEs) have been reported. Dilation procedures using a non-cautery or cautery device increase the incidence of AEs in EUS-HGS.
aimsWe evaluated EUS-HGS procedures without dilation and the factors associated with dilation.
methodsWe enrolled 79 patients who underwent EUS-HGS between July 2015 and March 2021 at two centers, 72 of whom had technical success (72/79, 91%). During the EUS-HGS procedures, we defined patients without dilation procedures as the dilation (-) group. We divided the patients into two groups: the dilation (+) (35 patients) and dilation (-) (37 patients) groups. We performed a propensity score matching analysis to adjust for confounding bias between the two groups. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was conducted to identify factors associated with dilation.
resultsThere was no difference in clinical success rate between the dilation (+) and dilation (-) groups (91% vs. 95%, P = 0.545). The AE rate (P = 0.013) and long procedure time (P = 0.017) were significantly higher in the dilation (+) group than in the dilation (-) group before and after propensity score matching. Factors associated with dilation were plastic stent placement (odds ratio [OR], 6.96; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.68-28.7; P = 0.007) and puncture angle of ≤ 90° (OR, 44.6; 95% CI, 5.1-390; P < 0.001).
conclusionsA dilation procedure in EUS-HGS may not always be necessary. However, patients with an angle of ≤ 90° between the needle and intrahepatic biliary tract or plastic stent deployment require dilation procedures.
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.