ArticleSurgical endoscopy2024
Endoscopic approach for biliopancreatic disease after pancreaticoduodenectomy: a 10-year single-center experience.
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 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Outcomes and predictors of success of endoscopic retrograde pancreatic drainage for pancreatic leaks and fistulas: a multicenter retrospective study.BMC gastroenterology · 2026Article
- Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Lumen-Apposing Metal Stent Drainage in Benign Pancreatobiliary and Gastrointestinal Disease: Evolving Techniques and Clinical Outcomes.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Endoscopic management of postoperative pancreatic fistula after pancreaticoduodenectomy: a single center retrospective analysis.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Article
- 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimIn surgically altered anatomy (SAA), endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) can be challenging, and it remains debatable the choice of the optimal endoscopic approach within this context. We aim to show our experience and evaluate the technical and clinical success of endoscopic treatment performed in the setting of adverse events (AE) after pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD).
methodsThis study was conducted on a retrospective cohort of patients presenting biliopancreatic complications after PD from 01/01/2012 to 31/12/2022. All patients underwent ERCP at our Endoscopy Unit. Clinical, instrumental data, and characteristics of endoscopic treatments were collected.
results133 patients were included (80 M, mean age = 65 y.o.) with a total of 296 endoscopic procedures (median = 2 procedures/treatment). The indications for ERCP were mainly biliary AE (76 cases, 57.1%). Technical success was obtained in 121 patients of 133 (90.9%). 112 out of 133 (84.2%) obtained clinical success. Nine patients out of 112 (8%) experienced AEs. Clinical success rates were statistically different between patients with biliary or pancreatic disease (93.4% vs 73.6%, p < 0.0001). Septic patients were 38 (28.6%) and showed a worse prognosis than non-septic ones (clinical success: 65.7% vs 91.5%, p = 0.0001). During follow-up, 9 patients (8%), experienced recurrence of the index biliopancreatic disease with a median onset at 20 months (IQR 6-40.1).
conclusionOur case series demonstrated that the use of a pediatric colonoscope in ERCP procedures for patients with AEs after PD is both safe and effective in treating the condition, even in a long-term follow-up.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39043884What 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.