Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40175795›Full record

SynthesisDigestive diseases and sciences2025

Per-oral Pancreatoscopy-Guided Lithotripsy Versus Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy in Pancreatic Stone: A Meta-Analysis.

Noppachai Siranart, Landon Kozai, Daniel Martin Simadibrata, Nawan Pornananrat, Peerada Roongphornchai, Patavee Pajareya, Rinrada Worapongpaiboon, Somkiat Phutinart, Wichapol Dendumrongsup, Yanisa Chumpangern and 3 more

Abstract readComparative StudyMeta-Analysis
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Digestive diseases and sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Advances in Diagnosis and Treatment With Cholangiopancreatoscopy.Digestive endoscopy : official journal of the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society · 2026
    Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors.

Noppachai SiranartDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Landon KozaiDepartment of Medicine, University of Hawaii, Honolulu, HI, USA.
Daniel Martin SimadibrataDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Nawan PornananratFaculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Peerada RoongphornchaiFaculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Patavee PajareyaFaculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Rinrada WorapongpaiboonFaculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Somkiat PhutinartFaculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Wichapol DendumrongsupFaculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Yanisa ChumpangernFaculty of Medicine, Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Aunchalee JaroenlapnopparatDepartment of Medicine, Mount Auburn Hospital, Beth Israel Lahey Health, Cambridge, MA, USA.
Kornpong VantanasiriDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Kittithat TantitanawatDepartment of Medicine, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Phramongklutklao Hospital, Bangkok, Thailand. kittithat.tantitanawat@gmail.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionPancreatic duct stones (PDS) pose a significant clinical challenge, and choosing treatment modality is crucial to achieving optimal outcomes. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) has long been regarded as the primary intervention for PDS. However, per-oral pancreatoscopy-guided lithotripsy (POP), both electrohydraulic lithotripsy (EHL-POP) and laser lithotripsy (LL-POP), has emerged as a promising endoscopic alternative. This meta-analysis compares the efficacy and safety profiles of EHL-POP, LL-POP, and ESWL for treating PDS.

methodsA search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases until November 2023 was conducted to identify studies assessing the use of EHL-POP, LL-POP, or ESWL for the treatment of PDS. Primary outcomes were technical success and clinical success of stones. Secondary outcomes were any adverse events (AEs) and the incidence of post-intervention pancreatitis.

resultsA total of 45 observational studies were included. Among the 9624 patients with PDS analyzed, 373 underwent POP (238 EHL-POP and 135 LL-POP), while 9,251 underwent ESWL. The pooled technical and clinical success rates of ESWL versus POP were 85.5% (95% CI: 79.1-90.2%) vs. 88.1% (95% CI: 75.1-94.8%) (p = 0.66) and 78.5% (95% CI: 70.9-84.5%) vs. 81.6% (95% CI: 65.1-91.4%) (p = 0.69), respectively. The pooled technical success rate of EHL-POP was 85.2% (95% CI: 68.5-93.9%, I

conclusionBoth EHL-POP and LL-POP, emerges as highly effective and safe alternatives for managing PDS, with safety profiles comparable to ESWL. POP could be considered as an alternative first-line option to ESWL for PDS.

Indexed as

CalculiEndoscopy, Digestive SystemLithotripsyPancreatic DiseasesHumansPancreatic DuctsTreatment OutcomeElectrohydraulic lithotripsyExtracorporeal shock wave lithotripsyLaser lithotripsyPancreatic duct stonesPer-oral pancreatoscopy-guided lithotripsy

Identifiers

PMID40175795

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.