Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42156570›Full record

Trial reportSurgical endoscopy2026

Comparison of procedure-related complications and success rates between duodenoscopes with disposable end caps and conventional reusable duodenoscopes: a randomized trial.

Pradeep K Siddappa, Monique T Barakat, Margaret J Zhou, Andrew A Li, Samer Eldika, Subhas Banerjee

Abstract readRandomized Controlled TrialComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

6 authors.

Pradeep K SiddappaDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Stanford University, 300 Pasteur Drive, Stanford, CA, 94305, USA.
Monique T BarakatDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Stanford University, 300 Pasteur Drive, Stanford, CA, 94305, USA.
Margaret J ZhouDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Stanford University, 300 Pasteur Drive, Stanford, CA, 94305, USA.
Andrew A LiDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Stanford University, 300 Pasteur Drive, Stanford, CA, 94305, USA.
Samer EldikaDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Stanford University, 300 Pasteur Drive, Stanford, CA, 94305, USA.
Subhas BanerjeeDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Stanford University, 300 Pasteur Drive, Stanford, CA, 94305, USA. sbanerje@stanford.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

aimsDuodenoscopes with disposable distal end caps (DDEC) have been introduced to reduce the risk of transmitting multi-drug-resistant organisms compared to conventional reusable duodenoscopes (CRD). However, there have been reports of increased procedure-related complications with DDEC. This study aims to compare the complication rate and procedure success rate between DDEC and CRD.

methodsPatients undergoing endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) were randomized to either the DDEC or CRD group. The primary outcomes were procedure-related complications, while secondary outcomes included procedure success rates and technical performance characteristics.

resultsA total of 319 patients were randomized, with 159 assigned to the DDEC group and 160 to the CRD group. The mean age of the patients was 65 years (range 50-72.5), and 40.8% were women. The study was terminated prematurely following interim analysis due to futility. There was no significant difference in procedure-related complications between the two groups (9 vs. 9; p > 0.05). Cap detachment did not occur in any of the patients in the DDEC group, and no patients in either group developed bacteremia within 3 months post-procedure. Additionally, there was no significant difference in procedure success rates between the two groups (154 vs. 155; p = 0.9).

conclusionDuodenoscopes with disposable end caps are safe and demonstrate comparable procedural characteristics to conventional reusable duodenoscopes.

Indexed as

Cholangiopancreatography, Endoscopic RetrogradeDisposable EquipmentDuodenoscopesPostoperative ComplicationsAgedEquipment DesignEquipment ReuseFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedBacteremiaCholangitisDuodenoscopesEndoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatographyGastrointestinal bleedingPancreatitis

Identifiers

PMID42156570

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.