Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&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
Background: Selective biliary cannulation in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography can be challenging due to factors like papillary morphology. Various patterns indicate cannulation difficulty, but the combinations causing difficulty and the optimal cannulation method for each scenario are unclear.
Aims: This study aimed to identify cannulation difficulty patterns and develop a predictive scoring system for selecting the appropriate cannulation method.
Methods: We retrospectively compared 776 patients with naïve papilla, dividing them into conventional contrast cannulation (N = 510) and salvage technique (N = 266) groups. The salvage group included patients using pancreatic duct guidewire placement and/or wire-guided cannulation due to difficulties with the contrast method. Papillary morphology (Haraldsson's classification), periampullary diverticulum (PAD), and scope operability were analyzed using multiple regression to identify risk factors for cannulation difficulties. Factors were scored based on hazard ratios to access combinations causing difficulties.
Results: The salvage group had more older patients and higher frequencies of type 2 (small), type 3 (protruding or pendulous), type 4 (creased or ridged) papillae, PAD, and poor scope operability. Significant risk factors in the multivariate analysis included type 2 [odds ratio (OR) 6.88], type 3 (OR 7.74), type 4 (OR 4.06) papillae, PAD (OR 2.26), and poor scope operability (OR 4.03). Pattern recognition scores were significantly higher in the salvage group (1.31 vs. 3.43, P < 0.0001).
Conclusions: Type 2-4 papillae, PAD, and poor scope operability are significant risk factors for cannulation difficulty. Pattern recognition scores based on these factors can predict cannulation difficulty and aid in selecting between conventional and salvage methods.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10620-024-08598-0 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!