ArticleBMC gastroenterology2024
Diagnosis and management of type II endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography-related perforations: a multicenter retrospective study.
Article in BMC gastroenterology, 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.
- Initial non-surgical versus upfront surgical management of ERCP-related perforations by Stapfer type: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Prevention and Management of Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography-Related Perforation: A Guideline-Based Narrative Review.Gut and liver · 2026Review
- Article
- Management of Stapfer Type II Perforations After Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography: A Retrospective Study.Journal of clinical practice and research · 2025Article
- Endoscopic Duodenal Stenting for Iatrogenic Stapfer Type I Duodenal Perforation: An Alternative to Surgical Repair.Cureus · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe management of type II endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP)-related perforation is still controversial. This study aimed to compare the effects of covered self-expandable metallic stent (SEMS), surgery, and conservative treatment for type II perforation.
methodsFrom January 2010 to December 2021, this study collected relevant data from five large hospitals in China. The data of ERCP difficulty grading and ERCP-related perforation in 26,673 cases that underwent ERCP during 11 years were retrospectively analyzed. Of 55 patients with type II perforation, 41 patients were implanted with a biliary covered SEMS (stent group), 10 underwent surgery (surgery group), and 4 received conservative treatment (conservative group).
resultsAmong the 55 patients with type II perforation, ERCP and computed tomography diagnostic rates of type II perforation were 10.91% (6/55) and 89.09% (49/55), respectively. The incidence of type II perforation in grade 5 ERCP (0.43%, 11/2,537) was significantly higher than that in grade 1-3 ERCP (0.16%, 32/19,471). (P = 0.004) and grade 1-4 ERCP (0.26%,12/4,665) (P = 0.008), respectively. Among the 10 patients in the surgical group, primary repair was performed in only 7 patients in whom location of the perforation could be identified. The incidence of retroperitoneal abscess was significantly lower in the stent group than in the surgery group (P = 0.018) and the conservative group (P = 0.001), respectively. The average hospital stay in the stent group was shorter than that in the surgery group (P = 0.000) and conservative group (P = 0.001), respectively.
conclusionsThe incidence of type II perforation was dependent on the degree of difficulty of ERCP. The treatment of type II perforation with a covered SEMS can significantly reduce the incidence of retroperitoneal abscess and shorten the hospital stay, with better results than surgical and conservative treatments.
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.