ArticleCureus2022
Feasibility of a Single Pigtail Stent Made by Cutting a Nasobiliary Drainage Tube in Endoscopic Transpapillary Gallbladder Stenting for Acute Cholecystitis.
Article in Cureus, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Technical Evolution, Clinical Application, and Outcomes of Endoscopic Transpapillary Gallbladder Drainage in Acute Cholecystitis: A Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Predicting unplanned extubation risk in patients with endoscopic nasobiliary drainage.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and objective In this study, we aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of a single pigtail stent made by cutting a nasobiliary drainage tube (NBD stent) by comparing the clinical outcomes of using an NBD stent and those of using a ready-made double pigtail stent (RDP stent) in endoscopic gallbladder stenting (EGBS) for acute cholecystitis. Materials and methods This was a single-center retrospective study involving 20 cases that had technical success with EGBS for acute cholecystitis; the patients were divided into two groups: those using NBD stent (NBD group) and those using RDP stent (RDP group). The baseline characteristics and clinical outcomes were compared between the two groups. Results There were 13 patients in the NBD group and seven in the RDP group. The rates of clinical success (NBD group: 92% vs. RDP group: 100%, p=0.45) did not differ significantly between the groups. Regarding adverse events, gallbladder perforation occurred in one case in the NBD group; however, no other adverse events occurred in either group (NBD group: 7.7% vs. RDP group: 0%, p=0.45). The stent patency periods did not differ significantly between the groups [NBD group: 43 (12-64) days vs. RDP group: 97 (58-215) days, p=0.17]. The stent patency period in cases of long-term stent placement after EGBS was 1,381 days and 1,579 days in the NBD group and 305 days in the RDP group, respectively. Conclusion NBD stents are considered as effective as RDP stents in EGBS for acute cholecystitis. They are highly versatile and can be used for both bridging to surgery and long-term stent placement.
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.