ArticleEndoscopic ultrasound
EUS-guided lauromacrogol ablation with different concentrations of lauromacrogol for the treatment of pancreatic cystic neoplasm: A randomized controlled study.
Article in Endoscopic ultrasound. 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.
- Endoscopic ultrasound-guided radiofrequency ablation for pancreatic cystic neoplasms: a comprehensive review.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Review
- EUS-guided ablation for pancreatic cystic lesions: An updated review.Endoscopic ultrasoundReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: To explore the safety and efficacy of injections of 1%, 2%, or 3% lauromacrogol during EUS-guided lauromacrogol ablation (EUS-LA) for the treatment of pancreatic cystic neoplasms (PCNs) and to determine the optimal concentration of lauromacrogol for use in EUS-LA therapeutic regimens. Methods: From May 2021 to January 2023, patients who met the indications for EUS-LA were randomly divided into 3 groups: A, B, and C; the patients in these groups were injected with 1%, 2%, and 3% lauromacrogol during EUS-LA, respectively. Safety was evaluated based on the incidence of postoperative complications. Efficacy was comprehensively evaluated by assessing the ablation rate and ablation effect. Results: Forty-two patients underwent EUS-LA, and 31 patients completed at least 1 postoperative re-examination. No acute pancreatitis was observed in the 1% and 2% lauromacrogol groups, and 1 case of acute pancreatitis occurred in the 3% lauromacrogol group. The total complication rate was 2.4%. The median ablation rates of the groups were 94.1%, 82.0%, and 100.0%, respectively. There were statistically significant differences in the EUS-LA ablation rate between the 1% and 3% lauromacrogol groups and between the 2% and 3% lauromacrogol groups. There was a statistically significant difference in complete disappearance between the 1% and 3% lauromacrogol groups as well as between the 2% and 3% lauromacrogol groups. Conclusion: The short-term outcomes showed that injections of 1%, 2%, and 3% lauromacrogol were safe for use in EUS-LA, and injection of 3% lauromacrogol was the most effective for EUS-LA.
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.