A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

A prospective randomized study of loop-tip versus straight-tip guidewire in wire-guided biliary cannulation. | LitMetric

Background: Wire-guided cannulation has been widely accepted as a useful technique for achieving selective biliary access because it has significantly increased the success rate of biliary cannulation compared with conventional contrast-assisted cannulation. Unlike conventional guidewires with a straight tip, a loop-tip guidewire (LGW) has a closed distal loop that may facilitate less traumatic access through the epithelial folds of the intra-duodenal biliary segments. The aim of this study was to compare the performance of a LGW with a straight-tip guidewire (SGW) in achieving successful selective biliary cannulation.

Methods: From December 2014 to December 2015, we performed 192 wire-guided biliary cannulations for a naïve papilla in a randomized controlled trial. Patients were randomly assigned to the LGW group (n = 96) or the SGW group (n = 96). Our study protocol did not include crossover to the other guidewire arm if randomized wire-guided cannulation proved unsuccessful within the first 10 min.

Results: There was no significant difference in primary successful biliary cannulation between the two groups (LGW group: 86.5%; SGW group: 77.1%; p = 0.134). The rate and the mean number of unintentional pancreatic duct cannulations during wire-guided biliary cannulation were significantly lower in the LGW group than in the SGW group (LGW group: 14.6%; SGW group: 28.1%; p = 0.034; LGW group: 0.2 ± 0.5; SGW group: 0.6 ± 1.3; p = 0.007). Post-ERCP pancreatitis developed in 5.2% of patients in the LGW group and 8.3% of patients in the SGW group (p = 0.567).

Conclusions: The biliary cannulation rate of the LGW was not significantly different from those of conventional guidewires. Use of the LGW was associated with a lower rate of unintentional pancreatic duct cannulation during wire-guided biliary cannulation than use of the SGW.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00464-017-5851-zDOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

biliary cannulation
24
lgw group
24
sgw group
24
wire-guided biliary
16
group
12
biliary
10
cannulation
10
lgw
10
straight-tip guidewire
8
wire-guided cannulation
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!