Copyright
©The Author(s) 2022.
World J Gastroenterol. Aug 7, 2022; 28(29): 3803-3813
Published online Aug 7, 2022. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v28.i29.3803
Published online Aug 7, 2022. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v28.i29.3803
Table 1 Summary of studies on reporting interval endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography
| Ref. | Study design (patient number) | Percentage1 | Median time interval2 (range) | Pre-cut during interval ERCP | Technical success rate | Factors associated with success | Overall complication rate |
| Kevans et al[12] (2010) | Retrospective (n = 19) | 53% (19/36) | 6 d (1-21 d) | 0% | 68% (13/19) | NA | 0 |
| Donnellan et al[13] (2012) | Retrospective (n = 51) | 68% (51/75) | 8 d (1-28 d) | NA | 75% (38/51) | 3 d vs 6 d (failure vs success) | 3.9% (2/51) |
| Kim et al[14] (2012) | Retrospective (n = 69) | 76% (69/91) | NA (1-3 d) | 16% (11/69) | 77% (53/69) | 1 d vs 2-3 d (66% vs 88%) | 15.9% (11/69) |
| Pavlides et al[15] (2014) | Retrospective (n = 89) | 82% (89/108) | 4 d (IQR 3-6 d) | NA | 78% (69/89) | NA | - |
| Colan-Hernandez et al[16] (2017) | Retrospective (n = 72) | 64% (72/112) | 7 d (IQR 5-11 d) | NA | 75% (54/72) | ≤ 4 d vs > 4 d (44% vs 79%) | 4.2% (3/72) |
| Narayan et al[17] (2017) | Retrospective (n = 28) | 76% (28/37) | 3 d (3-4 d) | NA | 79% (22/28) | NA | - |
| Lo et al[9] (2021) | Retrospective (n = 43) | 38% (43/114) | 4 d (1-20 d) | 28% (12/43) | 79% (34/43) | None | 7.0% (3/43) |
| Overall | n = 371 | - | - | - | 76.3% (281/371) | - | 7.5% (19/254) |
- Citation: Tsou YK, Pan KT, Lee MH, Lin CH. Endoscopic salvage therapy after failed biliary cannulation using advanced techniques: A concise review. World J Gastroenterol 2022; 28(29): 3803-3813
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1007-9327/full/v28/i29/3803.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v28.i29.3803