Trial reportSurgical endoscopy2026
A novel sheath system to improve target access for preoperative mapping biopsy: A randomized trial to inform surgical planning.
Trial report in Surgical endoscopy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAccurate assessment of biliary tract cancer spread is important for appropriate surgery. However, conventional fluoroscopy-guided transpapillary biopsy often fails to reach intrahepatic bile ducts. This study evaluated a novel tapered-tip sheath system (SS) for preoperative mapping biopsy (MB).
methodsIn this single-center randomized trial, 90 patients with suspected malignant bile duct stenosis were assigned 1:1 to SS or conventional biopsy; crossover after technical failure was allowed. The primary outcome was MB success (intention-to-treat [ITT]). MB success was defined as obtaining adequate, pathologically assessable samples from all planned sites. Secondary outcomes included technical success, procedure time, adverse events (AEs), and surgery-related outcomes (avoidance of unnecessary surgery, R0 resection rate, and diagnostic accuracy).
resultsITT MB success did not differ between groups (91.3% vs 90.9%; P > 0.99). Among patients who underwent MB, crossover occurred more frequently in the conventional group (17/42 [40.5%] vs 0/44 [0%]; P < 0.01), and SS achieved higher target site reach with the allocated method (100% vs 59.5%; P < 0.01). Per-site biopsy success was 95.3% with SS and 91.9% with the conventional method (P = 0.25). Overall procedure time was longer with SS (35.2 vs 26.9 min; P = 0.04), whereas total biopsy time did not differ (9.3 vs 8.2 min; P = 0.14). Rates of post-ERCP pancreatitis were similar (13.6% vs 11.9%; P > 0.99). Regarding surgery-related outcomes, avoidance of unnecessary surgery occurred in 4.8% with SS and 0% with the conventional method (P = 0.55). R0 resection was numerically higher with SS (71.4% vs 50.0%; P = 0.21), and diagnostic accuracy for hepatic and distal margins was high in the SS group (concordance: 83.3% and 90.0%, respectively).
conclusionsDespite comparable ITT success due to rescue crossover, SS achieved reliable duct access and may inform surgical planning. When selective biliary access is difficult with the conventional method, novel SS is a useful alternative for preoperative MB. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTER: Registration number: UMIN000044509.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41428008What 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.