Observational studyDigestive diseases and sciences2024
Utility of a Passive Bending Colonoscope for Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography in Patients with Surgically Altered Anatomy.
Observational study in Digestive diseases and sciences, 2024. 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.
- Colonoscopy-assisted preplacement of guide tube for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in patients with complex surgically altered anatomy.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- The Success and Safety of Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography in Surgically Altered Gastrointestinal Anatomy.Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
13 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimThe utility of a passive bending colonoscope (PBCS) in ERCP for patients with surgically altered anatomy has not been established. This study compared the outcome of PBCS-ERCP and balloon-assisted enteroscope (BAE)-ERCP.
methodsThis multicenter observational study included 343 patients with surgically altered anatomy who underwent ERCP. Among these, 110 underwent PBCS-ERCP and 233 underwent BAE-ERCP. Propensity score matching was applied, and a final cohort of 210 (105 in each group) with well-balanced backgrounds was analyzed. The primary outcome was the success rate of reaching anastomosis or ampulla of Vater. Secondary endpoints included the cannulation success rate, completion rate, procedure time (to reach, cannulate, complete), and adverse events.
resultsThe success rate for reaching the target was 91.4% (96/105) with PBCS and 90.5% (95/105) with BAE (odds ratio [95% CI] 1.12, [0.44-2.89], P = 0.809). The mean time required to reach the target was significantly shorter in PBCS: 10.04 min (SD, 9.62) with PBCS versus 18.77 min (SD, 13.21) with BAE (P < 0.001). There were no differences in the success of cannulation or procedure completion, although the required times for cannulation and procedure completion were significantly shorter in PBCS. The incidence of adverse events was significantly higher in BAE (19.0%) than in PBCS (4.8%; P < 0.001).
conclusionsIn patients with surgically altered anatomy, PBCS-ERCP showed promising results with shorter time to reach, cannulate, and a lower incidence of adverse events compared with BAE-ERCP. The success rate of reaching was favorable through PBCS compared with BAE. CLINICAL
trial registrationUMIN000045546.
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.