ReviewFrontiers in medicine2026
Difficult biliary cannulation during ERCP: techniques and an evidence-informed practical algorithm.
Review in Frontiers in medicine, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Difficult biliary cannulation remains the pivotal technical barrier in therapeutic endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and is a major modifiable driver of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP). Contemporary practice has moved from prolonged standard attempts toward earlier recognition of difficult access, guidewire-based primary cannulation, targeted rescue techniques, and routine pancreatitis prophylaxis. This review summarizes current evidence and proposes a practical, evidence-informed algorithm for native papilla ERCP. Difficult cannulation is best recognized using objective procedural thresholds, including more than five papillary contacts, more than 5 min after papillary visualization, or more than one unintended pancreatic duct (PD) cannulation or opacification. Primary cannulation should use a wire-guided approach with careful control of papillary trauma and contrast injection. Once difficulty is declared, rescue technique selection should follow procedural anatomy and clinical context rather than a rigid sequence: repeated PD access favors double-guidewire (DGW), transpancreatic biliary sphincterotomy (TPBS), or PD stent-assisted approaches; a bulging or favorably oriented papilla favors early needle-knife fistulotomy (NKF); and failed access despite endoscopist expertise should prompt escalation rather than continued trauma. Rectal nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs should be administered before or during ERCP in patients without contraindications; prophylactic PD stenting should be used after repeated or deep PD access and according to the rescue technique and overall PEP risk, with appropriate hydration in suitable patients. Local postprocedural cryoprevention with papillary ice-water irrigation is an emerging adjunct supported by one multicenter randomized trial, although its incremental benefit alongside standard prophylaxis remains uncertain. When ERCP fails, repeat expert ERCP, endoscopic ultrasound-guided rendezvous (EUS-RV) or biliary drainage (EUS-BD), and percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) should be selected according to indication, urgency, anatomy, patient stability, and local expertise. The algorithm distinguishes guideline-supported decision nodes from areas in which comparative evidence is limited and sequencing represents a practical expert synthesis.
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.