ArticleSurgical endoscopy2026
Cracking the code of post-ERCP pancreatitis: predictors, prevention, and proven strategies from 3323 surgeon-led procedures.
Article 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEndoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is a crucial yet technically demanding therapeutic procedure. Post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) remains one of its most significant complications, with risk influenced by both patient- and procedure-related factors. Standardised technical strategies may help reduce this risk, but published evidence from surgeon-led ERCP services is still limited. This study evaluates predictors of PEP and the effectiveness of a surgeon-led, protocol-driven approach in reducing its occurrence.
methodsWe retrospectively analysed 3323 consecutive ERCP procedures performed by four surgical endoscopists at a UK district general hospital between September 2016 and May 2025. A uniform technical protocol including wire-guided cannulation, early needle-knife sphincterotomy, minimal papillary trauma, and NSAID prophylaxis was adopted. Prospectively collected demographic, procedural, and outcome data were reviewed. Independent predictors of PEP were identified using univariable and multivariable logistic regression.
resultsPEP occurred in 90 cases (2.7%; 95% CI: 2.21-3.32), predominantly mild (76.5%), with moderate (15.3%) and severe (8.2%) forms less frequent. Mortality from PEP was 0.06%. Independent predictors of PEP were emergency ERCP (OR 2.07; 95% CI: 1.23-3.48), first ERCP (OR 4.79; 95% CI: 2.66-9.29), age < 60 years (OR 1.69; 95% CI: 1.08-2.62), and biliary stent placement (OR 1.61; 95% CI: 1.03-2.52). Hospital length of stay increased with PEP severity (median 5 vs 12.5 vs 32 days; p < 0.001). Operator experience had no significant effect on PEP incidence.
conclusionsOur surgeon-led ERCP service achieved a remarkably low PEP rate, reflecting careful technique and compliance to a structured protocol. Risk was shaped more by patient and procedural factors than by operator experience, underscoring the value of disciplined, evidence-based practice in minimising PEP.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41741795What 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.