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: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

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

Impact of supine versus prone position on endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography performance: a retrospective study. | LitMetric

Impact of supine versus prone position on endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography performance: a retrospective study.

Ann Gastroenterol

Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida (Paul T. Kröner, Frank J. Lukens, Juan E. Corral), USA.

Published: February 2021

Background: Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is frequently performed in the prone or supine position. We compared the technical success and other outcomes between these positions.

Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study using the Clinical Outcomes Research Initiative database. Demographics, procedure and fluoroscopy time, visualization of main structures, and technical success rates were compared between the supine and prone positions. Univariate and multivariate regressions were performed to adjust for age, sex, ethnicity and clinical setting.

Results: A total of 21,090 patients who underwent ERCP were included, of whom 1769 (8.4%) were supine and 19,321 (91.6%) were prone. The common bile duct (CBD) was visualized and cannulated in 89.1% of supine vs. 91.4% of prone positions (P=0.017), while the ampulla was visualized in 97.1% of supine vs. 97.7% of prone (P=0.414). The ERCP was incomplete in 10% of supine vs. 5% of prone cases (P<0.001). On multivariate analysis, supine position required shorter procedure times than prone (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.98, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.98-0.98; P<0.001). The supine position also yielded lower odds of CBD visualization and cannulation (aOR 0.63, 95%CI 0.44-0.91; P=0.011) and higher odds of an incomplete examination (aOR 1.84, 95%CI 1.46-2.30; P<0.001) vs. prone.

Conclusions: The supine position leads to shorter procedures but is more likely to result in poorer visualization and cannulation of the CBD and an incomplete examination. This may reflect the technical difficulty of performing ERCP in the supine position for the endoscopist. Our study supports recommendations for an individualized ERCP approach.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8276359PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.20524/aog.2021.0609DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

endoscopic retrograde
8
retrograde cholangiopancreatography
8
technical success
8
supine prone
8
prone positions
8
prone
7
supine
6
impact supine
4
supine versus
4
versus prone
4

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!