ArticleClinical endoscopy2026
Predicting retention and rethinking removal of pancreatic duct stents with a standardized protocol: a United Statesbased retrospective study.
Article in Clinical 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPancreatic duct (PD) stent selection impacts migration and retention. We evaluated risk factors for migration versus inappropriate retention of PD stents at a high volume center using a standardized stent management protocol.
methodsPatients undergoing endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) with PD stenting were retrospectively categorized by stent status at 2 weeks post-ERCP. Spontaneous migration was defined as absence of a PD stent on follow-up imaging, while inappropriate retention was defined as persistence of a non-flanged PD stent within the duct. The primary endpoint was PD stent retention at 2 weeks. Secondary endpoints included predictors of inappropriate retention and the need for endoscopic stent removal.
resultsA total of 482 patients underwent ERCP for biliary (n=289), pancreatic (n=181), or dual (n=12) indications. Non-flanged PD stents for biliary vs. pancreatic indications were 74.4% vs. 31.5% (p<0.001). Among 425 patients with follow-up imaging, predictors of PD stent retention included internal flanges (odds ratio [OR], 6.39; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.29-12.67), pancreatic indication (OR, 2.23; 95%CI, 1.22-4.07), and stent length >3cm (OR, 2.5; 95% CI, 1.23-5.07). Inappropriate retention of non-flanged stents occurred in 29 patients (12.5%), with only 5 (2.2%) requiring endoscopic removal due to mechanical obstruction.
conclusionsInappropriate retention of short, narrow caliber, non flanged PD stents is infrequent and rarely requires endoscopic removal.
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.