ArticleBMC surgery2026
Safety and feasibility of omitting routine endoscopic nasobiliary drainage after ERCP for common bile duct stones: a prospective comparative study.
Article in BMC surgery, 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
backgroundThe necessity of endoscopic nasobiliary drainage (ENBD) after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) for common bile duct stones remains controversial. This study aimed to evaluate the safety of an ENBD-free strategy and identify criteria for its safe omission.
methodsIn this prospective study, 70 patients undergoing ERCP for common bile duct stones were analyzed. Patients were managed with or without routine ENBD and further stratified according to the use of rectal diclofenac. Clinical outcomes, laboratory parameters, and ERCP-related complications were compared between groups. Logistic regression analyses were performed to identify independent risk factors for complications, with particular focus on patients managed without ENBD.
resultsIncidences of procedure-related complications, including post-ERCP pancreatitis (10.3% vs. 9.8%; P = 0.936), hyperamylasemia, and other adverse events, were comparable between the ENBD and no-ENBD groups (all P > 0.05). Similarly, no significant disparities were observed in laboratory markers or recovery metrics, including pain scores, time to symptom relief, and length of hospital stay (all P > 0.05). Within the No-ENBD cohort, multivariable analysis identified the number of cannulation attempts as the only variable remaining statistically significan of complications, with ≥ 2 attempts significantly increasing risk (OR: 18.67; 95% CI: 2.35–148.41; P < 0.001). While rectal diclofenac was confirmed as a safe adjunct, its incremental efficacy was not statistically significant in this study population.
conclusionRoutine ENBD placement can be safely omitted in most patients undergoing ERCP with an uncomplicated procedural course. However, ENBD remains an essential protective measure for cases of difficult cannulation to mitigate postoperative risks.
trial registrationResearchregistry11066. Retrospectively registered.
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.