Copyright
©2014 Baishideng Publishing Group Inc.
World J Gastroenterol. Jul 14, 2014; 20(26): 8617-8623
Published online Jul 14, 2014. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v20.i26.8617
Published online Jul 14, 2014. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v20.i26.8617
Table 2 Comparison of endoscopic procedures between the stent and no-stent groups
| Stent group (n = 24) | No-stent group (n = 31) | P-value | |
| Pancreatic guidewire diameter (0.025 inch or 0.035 inch) | 12/12 | 16/15 | 1.000 |
| Incision range of EST | |||
| Small | 3 | 4 | 1.000 |
| Medium | 21 | 26 | 1.000 |
| Large | 0 | 1 | 1.000 |
| Endoscopic biliary stenting | 14 | 11 | 0.109 |
| Bile duct stone removal | 10 | 19 | 0.180 |
| Intraductal ultrasonography | 7 | 10 | 1.000 |
| Endoscopic nasobiliary drainage | 3 | 6 | 0.716 |
| Biopsy of the bile duct | 2 | 7 | 0.271 |
| Cytology of the bile juice | 3 | 6 | 0.716 |
| Endoscopic naso-gallbladder drainage | 3 | 2 | 0.643 |
| Peroral cholangioscopy | 0 | 3 | 0.249 |
| Procedure time (min, mean ± SD) | 59.3 ± 19.0 | 66.4 ± 21.6 | 0.207 |
- Citation: Nakahara K, Okuse C, Suetani K, Michikawa Y, Kobayashi S, Otsubo T, Itoh F. Need for pancreatic stenting after sphincterotomy in patients with difficult cannulation. World J Gastroenterol 2014; 20(26): 8617-8623
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1007-9327/full/v20/i26/8617.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v20.i26.8617