Pre-Cut Papillotomy Versus Endoscopic Ultrasound-Rendezvous for Difficult Biliary Cannulation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Various endoscopic techniques are employed to achieve biliary cannulation when confronted with difficult biliary access. Every procedure carries its own risk in terms of bleeding, infection, pancreatitis, and cholangitis. Our meta-analysis aimed to compare pre-cut papillotomy and endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-rendezvous in terms of technical success rates, and post-procedure pancreatitis and bleeding. Methods: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies that compared pre-cut papillotomy and EUS-rendezvous. The primary outcome was technical success by achieving biliary cannulation. Secondary outcomes were postoperative pancreatitis and bleeding. A random-effects model was used to calculate the risk ratios (RRs) and confidence intervals (CIs). A P value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: Our meta-analysis included four studies comparing pre-cut papillotomy and EUS-rendezvous. The studies included 13,659 total endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) procedures, of whom 1,004 patients underwent alternate biliary cannulation procedures due to difficult biliary cannulation. The mean age of the study population was noted to be 49.5 years and males represented 53.3% of the total participants. Both procedures were similar in terms of technical success (RR: 0.95, 95% CI (0.88, 1.02)). No difference was found between rates of post procedure pancreatitis (RR: 1.82, 95% CI (0.80, 4.15)) and post procedure bleeding (RR: 2.80, 95% CI (0.67, 11.66)). Conclusions: There was no difference in technical success of procedure or post-procedure complications such as pancreatitis and bleeding between pre-cut papillotomy and EUS-rendezvous technique. More randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are needed to compare both procedural techniques and complications rates. However, currently, both procedures are equally effective and safe during difficult biliary cannulation in the hands of experienced endoscopists.
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 | 0.010 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.039 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".