ArticleSurgical endoscopy2024
Endoscopic ultrasound-guided versus surgical pancreatic duct drainage after failed endoscopic retrograde pancreatography: a pilot comparative study.
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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Endoscopic ultrasound-guided pancreatic duct drainage: Progress and future outlook.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundEndoscopic ultrasound-guided pancreatic duct (PD) drainage (EUS-PDD) is being increasingly performed as an alternative method to surgical drainage to achieve PD decompression after failed endoscopic retrograde pancreatography (ERP). However, no directly study has compared EUS-PDD with surgical PD drainage after failed ERP in patients with chronic pancreatitis.
methodsConsecutive patients who underwent EUS-PDD or longitudinal pancreaticojejunostomy after failed ERP were retrospectively identified from our endoscopy and medical information systems. The primary end point was the Izbicki pain score. The secondary end points were pain relief at the end of follow-up, procedure outcomes, adverse events, readmission, and reintervention.
resultsA total of 21 patients (11 EUS-PDD, 10 surgical drainages) were analyzed. There were no significant differences in mean Izbicki pain score (EUS-PDD, 13.6 ± 10.1 vs. surgical drainage 10.7 ± 7.9, p = 0.483) or complete/partial pain relief (60%/30% vs. 70%/30%, p = 0.752) at the end of follow-up of the two groups. The rates of overall adverse events (27.3% vs. 30.0%, p = 0.893) and readmission (63.6% vs. 40.0%, p = 0.290) were similar in the two treatment groups, while patients in EUS-PDD group required more reinterventions (45.5% vs. 0%, p = 0.039) compared with patients in the surgery group.
conclusionEUS-PDD showed comparable pain relief and safety to surgical PD drainage after failed ERP, with a higher rate of reintervention. The selection of EUS-PDD or surgical drainage may be appropriate based on an individualized strategy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38898340What 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.