ArticleTurkish journal of surgery2022
Experience of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography with side-viewing duodenoscope in patients with previous gastric surgery.
Article in Turkish journal of surgery, 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.
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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) with conventional side-viewing duodenoscope can be challenging and unsuccessful at altered anatomy in the gastrointestinal tract. This study aimed to evaluate our experience with ERCP in patients with previous gastric surgery. Material and Methods: Patients on whom ERCP was performed from January 2017 to August 2021 and who had previous gastric surgery were included into the study. Age, sex, comorbidity, Charlson's Comorbidity Index (CCI), ERCP indication, previous gastric surgery (indication, type of resection and reconstruction), history of cholecystectomy, and MRCP results were evaluated retrospectively. The results were compared as successful ERCP (SERCP) or unsuccessful ERCP (USERCP). Also, odds ratio ERCP failure was also evaluated. Results: Forty-three patients were included into study. Mean age was 68.8 ± 13.6 years. The most common sex was female (51.2%). The most common ERCP indication was choledocholithiasis with 44.2%, gastric surgery indication was peptic ulcer with 72.1%, gastric resection was subtotal with 67.4%, and reconstruction was gastrojejunostomy with 58.1%. The success rate of ERCP was 44.2%. Mean CCI was 4.16 ± 2.28. Only malignancy history was significantly higher in the USERCP group (p= 0.026). Male sex, non-choledocholithiasis indication, history of malignancy, CCI> 4, total gastrectomy, Roux-NY (RNY) reconstruction, history of cholecystectomy, and intercalarily to the bile duct dilatation in MRCP were likelihood for USERCP. Conclusion: While history of malignancy and cholecystectomy were the only significant factor for unsuccessful ERCP, male sex, total gastrectomy, RNY anastomosis result in a higher likelihood of ERCP failure in patients with previous gastric surgery. Alternative devices to side-viewing duodenoscope will increase success in selected patients.
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.