Observational studyDigestive endoscopy : official journal of the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society2026
Effectiveness and Safety of Enteroscopy-Assisted ERP-Guided Versus EUS-Guided Pancreatic Duct Drainage for Pancreaticojejunostomy Strictures: A Multicenter Observational Study.
Observational study in Digestive endoscopy : official journal of the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society, 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
25 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesEnteroscopy-assisted endoscopic retrograde pancreatography-guided pancreatic duct drainage (eERP-PDD) and endoscopic ultrasound-guided pancreatic duct drainage (EUS-PDD) are minimally invasive alternatives to surgery for pancreaticojejunostomy stricture (PJS); however, comparative data remain limited. We compared the effectiveness and safety of these approaches and identified factors associated with technical failure.
methodsThis multicenter retrospective study included 88 patients (111 procedures) who underwent endoscopic intervention for PJS at 13 Japanese tertiary centers. We compared clinical outcomes between eERP-PDD and EUS-PDD. The primary outcome was technical success; secondary outcomes included clinical success, procedure time, and adverse events (AEs). Propensity-score overlap weighting was used to adjust for baseline differences.
resultsAs initial treatment, 77 patients underwent eERP-PDD and 11 underwent EUS-PDD. After adjustment, EUS-PDD achieved higher technical success (eERP-PDD, 28% vs. EUS-PDD, 71%; p = 0.012) and clinical success (22% vs. 71%; p = 0.003), with shorter procedure time (76 min vs. 41 min; p = 0.001). AE incidence was higher with EUS-PDD before adjustment (5% vs. 27%; p = 0.039) but comparable after adjustment (7% vs. 29%; p = 0.15); all AEs resolved with conservative management. Age < 75 years, male sex, and main pancreatic duct (MPD) diameter ≥ 5 mm were independently associated with eERP-PDD failure.
conclusionsEUS-PDD demonstrated higher technical and clinical success than eERP-PDD for PJS, with comparable safety after adjustment. An MPD diameter ≥ 5 mm was associated with eERP-PDD failure. An MPD-based algorithm is proposed: eERP-PDD for MPD < 5 mm with EUS-PDD as salvage, and EUS-PDD for MPD ≥ 5 mm. This algorithm is hypothesis-generating and requires prospective validation.
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.