AIM: To investigate the benefits of endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) before stent placement by meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Science Citation Index databases up to March 2014 were searched. The primary outcome was incidence of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP) and successful stent insertion rate. The secondary outcomes were the incidence of post-ERCP bleeding, stent migration and occlusion. The free software Review Manager was used to perform the meta-analysis. RESULTS: Three studies (n = 338 patients, 170 in the EST group and 168 in the non-EST group) were included. All three studies described a comparison of baseline patient characteristics and showed that there were no statistically significant differences between the two groups. Three RCTs, including 338 patients, were included in this meta-analysis. Most of the analyzed outcomes were similar between the groups. Although EST reduced the incidence of PEP, it also led to a higher incidence of post-ERCP bleeding (OR = 0.34, 95%CI: 0.12-0.93, P = 0.04; OR = 9.70, 95%CI: 1.21-77.75, P = 0.03, respectively). CONCLUSION: EST before stent placement may be useful in reducing the incidence of PEP. However, EST-related complications, such as bleeding and perforation, may offset this effect.
AIM: To investigate the benefits of endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) before stent placement by meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Science Citation Index databases up to March 2014 were searched. The primary outcome was incidence of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP) and successful stent insertion rate. The secondary outcomes were the incidence of post-ERCP bleeding, stent migration and occlusion. The free software Review Manager was used to perform the meta-analysis. RESULTS: Three studies (n = 338 patients, 170 in the EST group and 168 in the non-EST group) were included. All three studies described a comparison of baseline patient characteristics and showed that there were no statistically significant differences between the two groups. Three RCTs, including 338 patients, were included in this meta-analysis. Most of the analyzed outcomes were similar between the groups. Although EST reduced the incidence of PEP, it also led to a higher incidence of post-ERCP bleeding (OR = 0.34, 95%CI: 0.12-0.93, P = 0.04; OR = 9.70, 95%CI: 1.21-77.75, P = 0.03, respectively). CONCLUSION: EST before stent placement may be useful in reducing the incidence of PEP. However, EST-related complications, such as bleeding and perforation, may offset this effect.
Authors: Michel Kahaleh; Jeffrey Tokar; Mark R Conaway; Andrew Brock; Tri Le; Reid B Adams; Paul Yeaton Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2005-04 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: D Vaira; L D'Anna; C Ainley; J Dowsett; S Williams; J Baillie; S Cairns; J Croker; P Salmon; P Cotton Journal: Lancet Date: 1989-08-19 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: C Mel Wilcox; Jerrold Canakis; Klaus E Mönkemüller; Anthony W Bondora; Wilma Geels Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2004-02 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Gianfranco Donatelli; Fabrizio Cereatti; Jean-Loup Dumont; Parag Dhumane; Thierry Tuszynski; Bertrand Marie Vergeau; Bruno Meduri Journal: SAGE Open Med Case Rep Date: 2016-05-05
Authors: Andrew M Veitch; Geoffroy Vanbiervliet; Anthony H Gershlick; Christian Boustiere; Trevor P Baglin; Lesley-Ann Smith; Franco Radaelli; Evelyn Knight; Ian M Gralnek; Cesare Hassan; Jean-Marc Dumonceau Journal: Gut Date: 2016-03 Impact factor: 23.059