Copyright
©The Author(s) 2025.
World J Gastrointest Surg. May 27, 2025; 17(5): 104043
Published online May 27, 2025. doi: 10.4240/wjgs.v17.i5.104043
Published online May 27, 2025. doi: 10.4240/wjgs.v17.i5.104043
Table 5 Analysis of predictive factors for post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis: A univariate and multivariate analysis
Variables | Univariate | Multivariate | ||||
Odds ratio | 95%CI | P value1 | Odds ratio | 95%CI | P value1 | |
Age | 0.48 | 0.13-1.72 | 0.26 | |||
Sex | 1.75 | 0.47-6.49 | 0.40 | |||
BMI | 2.09 | 0.58-7.50 | 0.26 | |||
Malignant/benign | 0.95 | 0.18-4.90 | 0.95 | |||
Dome tip vs tapered tip | 1.27 | 0.36-4.52 | 0.72 | |||
Time to selective biliary cannulation | 14.00 | 2.77-70.86 | 0.00 | 9.33 | 1.31-66.44 | 0.03 |
Time to ERCP procedure | 6.98 | 1.41-34.64 | 0.02 | 3.23 | 0.50-20.80 | 0.22 |
Number of contrast papilla contact | 0.18 | 0.04-0.74 | 0.02 | 1.00 | 0.14-6.94 | 1.00 |
Number of unintentional P duct cannulation | 0.43 | 0.12-1053 | 0.19 | |||
Rescue cannulation | 2.68 | 0.68-10.52 | 0.16 |
- Citation: Lee J, Park JS. Dome vs tapered tip sphincterotomes in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: A pilot study on cannulation success and postprocedural pancreatitis. World J Gastrointest Surg 2025; 17(5): 104043
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1948-9366/full/v17/i5/104043.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4240/wjgs.v17.i5.104043