BPG is committed to discovery and dissemination of knowledge
Retrospective Cohort Study
©The Author(s) 2025.
World J Gastrointest Endosc. Sep 16, 2025; 17(9): 108420
Published online Sep 16, 2025. doi: 10.4253/wjge.v17.i9.108420
Table 5 Comparison of patient backgrounds between standard and advanced cannulation techniques, n (%)
Outcomes
Standard cannulation techniques (n = 314)
ACTs (n = 89)
Univariate analysis (P value)
Logistic regression analysis (P value)
OR (95%CI)
Age, median (range)78 (29-104)78 (46-96)1.00--
Sex (male/female)176/13854/350.47--
Malignant disease89 (28.3)48 (53.9)< 0.001< 0.0012.58 (1.53-4.34)
Experts162 (51.6)52 (58.4)0.280.631.24 (0.76-1.84)
Peripapillary diverticulum88 (28.0)19 (21.3)0.220.470.76 (0.44-1.32)
Oral protrusion-L52 (16.6)58 (65.2)< 0.001< 0.0012.77 (1.65-4.65)


Write to the Help Desk