Trial reportUnited European gastroenterology journal2025
Balloon Catheter Versus Drill Dilator for EUS-Guided Hepaticogastrostomy Stent Placement: A Randomized Clinical Trial.
Trial report in United European gastroenterology journal, 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.
- Guidewire-bile duct angle as a determinant of stent delivery success in EUS-guided hepaticogastrostomy: a prospective double-lumen dilator cohort with propensity score-matched historical controls.Therapeutic advances in gastroenterology · 2026Article
- Unusual complications following endoscopic ultrasound-guided hepaticogastrostomy: A call for refined techniques and dedicated devices.World journal of gastroenterology · 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
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesA novel partially self-expandable metal stent (PCSEMS) with an anti-migration system has recently become available during Endoscopic ultrasound-guided hepaticogastrostomy (EUS-HGS) but requires tract dilation. No previous study has compared the performance of dilation devices during EUS-HGS. The aim of this randomized controlled trial was to evaluate the technical success rate of tract dilation between a balloon catheter and drill dilator technique during EUS-HGS prior to insertion of SEMS with an anti-migration system.
methodsA single-center, randomized controlled trial comparing the balloon dilation and drill dilator techniques for first-line tract dilation during EUS-HGS. The primary outcome was the initial technical success rate of tract dilation for each technique during EUS-HGS. The secondary outcome was adverse events associated with the procedures.
resultsOf 54 randomized patients who underwent EUS-HGS at our center, there were 27 in the balloon dilation group and 27 in the drill dilation group. The initial technical success rate was 92.6% (25/27) in the balloon dilation group and 100% (27/27) in the drill dilation group (p = 0.1495). The technical success rate of stent delivery system insertion was significantly higher in the balloon dilation group (88%, 22/25) than in the drill dilation group (45%, 13/27; p = 0.0013). Procedure time was significantly shorter in the balloon dilation group (mean, 9.7 min) than in the drill dilation group (mean, 14.0 min; p = 0.047). Adverse events were more frequent in the drill dilation group (7.4% vs. 29.6%, p = 0.038).
conclusionsBalloon dilation appears more suitable than drill dilation for PCSEMS with 8.5 Fr stent delivery system deployment. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: University Hospital Medical Information Network 000049550.
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.