ReviewEndoscopy international open2025
Safety of intrabiliary radiofrequency ablation in cases of residual and recurrent neoplasia after endoscopic papillectomy.
Review in Endoscopy international open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Endobiliary Radiofrequency Ablation for Hepato-Biliary Diseases: A Narrative Review.Diseases (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Machine learning-based prediction model for post-ERCP cholangitis in patients with malignant biliary obstruction: a retrospective multicenter study.Surgical endoscopy · 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 study aims: Intrabiliary radiofrequency ablation (IB-RFA) is a therapeutic option for cases of positive margin or recurrence after endoscopic papillectomy (EP) for superficial neoplasia. We report our experience concerning safety and efficiency of IB-RFA. Patients and methods: This was a single tertiary center retrospective study. All patients who underwent IB-RFA indicated for residual or recurrent neoplasia after EP were included. We assessed morbidity (<30 days) and late complications (>30 days). Secondary outcomes were clinical success and late recurrence (absence of recurrence at the papillectomy site 12 months after IB-RFA and recurrence beyond 12 months, respectively). Results: Twenty-five patients were included and underwent IB-RFA for deep positive margins (20/25, 80%) or relapse (5/25, 20%) and 40 sessions were delivered. The morbidity rate was 8% (2/24) (1 pancreatitis, 1 bleeding). Acute pancreatitis was significantly more common in the absence of pancreatic stenting (0% vs. 22%, Conclusions: IB-RFA is relatively safe and efficient in cases of residual or recurrent neoplasia after EP and is an alternative to surgery in well-selected cases. Biliary stricture occurred frequently (50%) but could be managed endoscopically without sequelae in all cases. In cases of pancreatic stenting failure and because of the risk of severe and potentially lethal acute pancreatitis, IB-RFA should be postponed.
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.