ERCP-Related Perforations: Risk Factors and Management
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Perforations during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) are rare, and the management of these perforations is variable, with some patients requiring immediate surgery and others only conservative management. We reviewed all ERCP-related perforations at our institution to determine: a) their incidence; b) clinical outcomes; c) which management approaches gave the best results; and d) which factors predict a perforation. PATIENTS AND METHODS: All patients who underwent ERCP and suffered perforation were reviewed. To compare the length of hospital stay of the perforation group with that of patients suffering a different complication, patients who developed post-ERCP pancreatitis were also reviewed. To evaluate predictors of ERCP-related perforations, three groups were compared: group 1 (n = 49), normal ERCP/no complications; group 2 (n = 52), ERCP complicated by pancreatitis; and group 3 (n = 33), ERCP with perforation. RESULTS: Of 33 patients with confirmed ERCP-related perforations, only seven patients required surgical intervention. The overall length of hospital stay (6.5 +/- 3.5 days) was significantly longer (P = 0.003) than that of a random group of patients with the complication of post-ERCP pancreatitis (4.7 +/- 2.6 days). According to univariate analysis, risk factors included: sphincterotomy (odds ratio [OR] 9.0, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 3.2 - 28.1); sphincter of Oddi dysfunction (OR 3.8, 95 % CI 1.4 - 11.0); and dilated common bile duct (OR 4.07, 95 % CI 1.63 - 10.18, P = 0.003). In the multivariate logistic regression analysis, additional predictive factors included the duration of procedure (OR 1.021, 95 % CI 1.006 - 1.036), and biliary stricture dilation (OR 7.2, 95 % CI 1.84 - 28.11). CONCLUSIONS: (i) The incidence of ERCP-related perforations is very low (0.35 %). (ii) Esophageal, gastric and duodenal perforations usually require surgery, but sphincterotomy- and guide wire-related perforations rarely do so. (iii) Factors which carry increased risk of an ERCP-related perforation include suspected sphincter of Oddi dysfunction, greater age, a dilated bile duct, sphincterotomy, and longer duration of the procedure.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".