Wire-Guided Cannulation Versus Contrast-guided Cannulation In Pediatric Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND/AIM: Wire-guided cannulation (WGC) of the common bile duct may be associated with fewer complications and higher success rate compared with contrast-guided cannulation (CGC) in adults. Data in children are lacking. The aim of this study was to compare the successful cannulation and complication rate of WGC and CGC in pediatric endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). PATIENTS AND METHODS: We report a retrospective cohort study comparing WGC to CGC in a pediatric cohort. We reviewed the medical records of 167 children who underwent ERCP over a 10-year time period (CGC, 1999-2003, WGC, 2003-2009). Indications, findings, and success were analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 93 patients (56%) underwent WGC and 74 (44%) CGC. Children in the WGC group were younger (9.5 ± 4.7 vs. 11.5 ± 4.6 years in CGC; P = 0.006) and underwent more therapeutic ERCP interventions (70% vs. 40% in CGC), whereas diagnostic ERCP was more common in the CGC group (60%; P < 0.005). The overall success (96%) and complication rate (8%) were identical in both groups but a trend toward a reduction in the complication rate over time was noted in the WGC group. Post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) was documented in one patient in the WGC group (1.1%) and three patients (4.2%) in the CGC group (P-NS). CONCLUSION: The success and complication rate in both CGC and WGC are comparable in children but considering the patient and procedure complexity and the trend toward lower PEP in the WGC group, WGC may be the preferable cannulation technique for ERCP in children.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".