ArticleSurgical endoscopy2024
Safety of skipping the tract dilation step for EUS-guided biliary drainage in patients with unresectable malignant biliary obstruction (with video).
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Review
- Clinical evaluation of a novel fluoroscopic mode for improving visibility during interventional endoscopic ultrasound (with video).Therapeutic advances in gastroenterology · 2025Article
- 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
- Prospective evaluation study of EUS-guided hepaticogastrostomy without tract dilation: Comparison to with tract dilation.Endoscopic ultrasoundArticle
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThin delivery system stents can be inserted directly without the need for a tract dilation step and are expected to reduce bile leakage during endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD). The present study retrospectively compared the safety and efficacy of EUS-BD using a thin metal stent (< 7.5 Fr) with those of EUS-BD using a conventional stent (≥ 7.5 Fr).
methodsThe present study enrolled 112 patients who underwent EUS-BD using metal stents for unresectable malignant biliary obstruction between April 2016 and July 2022. The primary endpoint was the rate of adverse events (AEs). The secondary endpoints were clinical success rate, procedure time, procedure success rate in the absence of the tract dilation step, recurrent biliary obstruction rate, time to biliary obstruction, and overall survival. Risk factors associated with early AEs were also evaluated.
resultsThe rate of early AEs was significantly lower (12% vs. 35%, P = 0.013) and the procedure success without the tract dilation step was significantly higher (82% vs. 33%, P < 0.001) in the thin than in the conventional delivery system stent group. None of the other secondary endpoints differed significantly between the two groups. Multivariate analysis showed that employing the tract dilation step during EUS-BD was a significant independent risk factor for early AEs (skipping vs. employing; HR, 9.66; 95% CI, 1.13-83.0, P = 0.028).
conclusionEmploying the tract dilation step during EUS-BD was a significant risk factor for early AEs. Metal stents with a delivery diameter < 7.5 Fr can be inserted directly without the tract dilation step, resulting in lower early AE rates.
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.