ArticlePloS one2024
Comparative study between biliary covered self-expandable metal stent and conventional endoscopic bile drainage treatment in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography-related Stapfer type II retroperitoneal perforations.
Article in PloS one, 2024. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPerforation is one of the most serious complications of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Conventional nonsurgical endoscopic treatments including intravenous antibiotic administration and plastic endoscopic biliary drainage are generally approved for the treatment of ERCP-related Stapfer type II perforation (perivaterian type). Biliary covered metal stent placement has recently been reported to have favorable outcomes in ERCP-related Stapfer type II perforations. We aimed to compare the outcomes of conventional endoscopic bile drainage and biliary covered self-expandable metal stent (SEMS) insertion in patients with Stapfer type II perforation.
methodsMedical records of patients who underwent ERCP at Kyungpook National University Hospital in Daegu from 2011 to 2022 were retrospectively reviewed.
resultsA total of 8,402 ERCP procedures were performed in our hospital. Sixty-six ERCP-related perforations (0.78%) were identified. Among them, 37 patients (56.1%) who had Stapfer type II perforations were enrolled. Thirteen and twenty-four patients received biliary covered SEMS insertion and conventional endoscopic bile drainage treatments, respectively. No significant differences were observed in the clinical success rate (92.3% vs. 91.7%, p = 1.000), hospital stay (9.46 ± 5.97 vs. 13.9 ± 13.2 days, p = 0.258), and post-ERCP-related fasting time (5.4 ± 3.4 vs 4.3 ± 3.0 days, p = 0.305). Complications including bleeding, post-ERCP pancreatitis, fever, and death were not significantly different between the two groups. The conventional endoscopic bile drainage group took less time for ERCP than the SEMS group (11.5 ± 5.2 vs. 18.5 ± 11.2 min, p = 0.013).
conclusionsCompared with the conventional endoscopic bile drainage treatment method, biliary covered SEMS did not improve patient outcomes in ERCP-related Stapfer type II perforations.
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.