Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41256072›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical practice and research2025

Management of Stapfer Type II Perforations After Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography: A Retrospective Study.

Onur Sakallı, Ufuk Coşkunkan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical practice and research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
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

2 authors.

Onur SakallıDepartment of General Surgery, University of Health Sciences, Balıkesir Atatürk City Hospital, Balıkesir, Türkiye.
Ufuk CoşkunkanDepartment of General Surgery, Tekirdağ Dr. İsmail Fehmi Cumalıoğlu City Hospital, Tekirdağ, Türkiye.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: Stapfer type II perforations are serious, rare complications associated with endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Controversies remain in the literature regarding the optimal management of these perforations. The aim of this study was to evaluate different management approaches for this complication. Materials and Methods: In this retrospective study, data were collected from the medical records of adult patients treated for Stapfer type II perforations. Variables evaluated included demographics, ERCP indication, time to diagnosis and surgery, methods of management, length of hospital stay, and patient outcomes. Results: Twenty-three patients were included in the study, with a mean (± standard deviation, SD) age of 54.8 (±11.1) years. The indications for ERCP were choledocholithiasis (n=17), suspected sphincter of Oddi dysfunction (n=5), and biliary fistula after cholecystectomy (n=1). Perforation was diagnosed on the day of the procedure in 12 patients (52.2%). Fifteen patients (65.2%) were managed surgically. Time to surgery was significantly correlated with the length of hospital stay. Three patients in the non-surgical group died, while there were no mortalities in the surgical group. Conclusion: Patients with ERCP-related type II perforations can initially be treated non-surgically. However, clinicians must remain vigilant for failure of non-surgical management, and treatment approaches should be individualized based on the patient's clinical condition. Surgical intervention should be considered with appropriate patient selection and timing.

Indexed as

Acute abdomenendoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatographyendoscopic sphincterotomyintestinal perforationpostoperative complications

Identifiers

PMID41256072
PMCPMC12478801

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.