Risk factors for pancreatitis after pancreatic sphincterotomy: a review of 572 cases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Endoscopic pancreatic sphincterotomy is indispensable for many therapeutic endoscopic maneuvers, but is also associated with a higher risk of pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). In this study, this subgroup of patients was investigated in order to identify risk factors and protective factors. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective chart review identified 572 endoscopic pancreatic sphincterotomies that met the inclusion criteria. Charts were examined for indications, endoscopic technique, and outcomes, including pancreatitis. RESULTS: A total of 477 patients underwent 572 endoscopic pancreatic sphincterotomies during a 5-year period. Indications for sphincterotomy included chronic pancreatitis (n = 398), access for tissue sampling (n = 52), acute recurrent pancreatitis (n = 45), transpapillary drainage of a pancreatic pseudocyst (n = 32), precut access to the common bile duct (n = 29), and others (n = 16). Pancreatic duct drainage was performed in 69.1 % of the procedures (nasopancreatic catheter, n = 290, or pancreatic stent placement, n = 105). Post-ERCP pancreatitis occurred in 69 cases (12.1 %) and was severe in 10. The multivariate analysis identified female sex as being associated with a higher risk of pancreatitis, while an elevated C-reactive protein level, pancreatic ductal stones, sphincterotomy at only the major papilla, and pancreatic duct drainage with a nasopancreatic catheter or stent were associated with a lower risk. CONCLUSIONS: This large series of patients undergoing endoscopic pancreatic sphincterotomy provides further evidence that both patient characteristics and technical factors modify the risk profile for post-ERCP pancreatitis. In addition to providing further definition of which patients are at risk, it also suggests that pancreatic duct drainage is an independently significant protective maneuver.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".