ArticleSurgical endoscopy2025
Difficult cannulation during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography-needle-knife precut versus transpancreatic sphincterotomy on the basis of successful cannulation and adverse events.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2025. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWhen cannulation is challenging during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), and the standard guidewire technique with sphincterotomy is unsuccessful, alternative cannulation techniques can be used to access the biliary tree. The purpose of this study was to compare the incidence of adverse events and cannulation success rates between transpancreatic sphincterotomy (TPS) and precut sphincterotomy (PCS).
methodsData from the Swedish Registry for Gallstone Surgery and ERCP (GallRiks), collected from 2011 to 2022, were analyzed. A total of 105,303 ERCP procedures were recorded in GallRiks during the study period. After exclusions, the study population consisted of 47,486 ERCP procedures. Of these, 4547 received PCS and 3273 received TPS. The remaining 39,666 ERCP procedures with conventional sphincterotomy served as the control group. The primary endpoints were successful cannulation and adverse events within 30 days.
resultsSuccessful cannulation was more frequent with the TPS technique than with the PCS technique (86.5% vs. 69.7%), but both groups had a lower cannulation rate than the control group (92.4%; OR-PCS 0.20, 95% CI 0.18-0.21; OR-TPS 0.58, 95% CI 0.52-0.64). The TPS group had a higher incidence of adverse events than the PCS group (24.1% vs. 18.8%) and both groups had a higher incidence of adverse events than the control group (15.5%; OR-PCS 1.25, 95% CI 1.15-1.36; OR-TPS 1.71, 95% CI 1.57-1.87). Adverse events for TPS were driven by a higher incidence of pancreatitis (10.5% vs. 6.4% vs. 4.5%; OR 2.53, 95% CI 2.23-2.86) and perforation (1.6% vs. 0.8% vs. 0.5%; OR 2.99, 95% CI 2.20-4.06) compared to both PCS and control.
conclusionTPS is more successful at cannulation than PCS; however, this success comes at a higher cost in terms of adverse events, particularly pancreatitis and perforation.
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.