• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

导丝管径对内镜逆行胰胆管造影术(ERCP)结果的影响:比较0.025英寸和0.035英寸导丝的系统评价和荟萃分析

Impact of guidewire caliber on ERCP outcomes: Systematic review and meta-analysis comparing 0.025- and 0.035-inch guidewires.

作者信息

Aziz Muhammad, Iqbal Amna, Ahmed Zohaib, Saleem Saad, Lee-Smith Wade, Goyal Hemant, Kamal Faisal, Alastal Yaseen, Nawras Ali, Adler Douglas G

机构信息

Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Toledo, Toledo, Ohio, United States.

Department of Internal Medicine, University of Toledo, Toledo, Ohio, United States.

出版信息

Endosc Int Open. 2022 Jul 15;10(7):E990-E997. doi: 10.1055/a-1834-7101. eCollection 2022 Jul.

DOI:10.1055/a-1834-7101
PMID:35845023
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9286775/
Abstract

The impact of guidewire caliber on endoscopic retrograde pancreatography (ERCP) outcomes are not clear. Recent studies have compared two guidewires, 0.035- and 0.025-inch, in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of available RCTs to assess if different caliber would change the outcomes in ERCP. A systematic search of PubMed/Medline, Embase, Cochrane, SciELO, Global Index Medicus and Web of Science was undertaken through November 23, 2021 to identify relevant RCTs comparing the two guidewires. Binary variables were compared using random effects model and DerSimonian-Laird approach. For each outcome, risk-ratio (RR), 95 % confidence interval (CI), and values were generated.  < 0.05 was considered significant. Three RCTs with 1079 patients (556 in the 0.035-inch group and 523 in the 0.025-inch group) were included. The primary biliary cannulation was similar in both groups (RR: 1.02, CI: 0.96-1.08,  = 0.60). The overall rates of PEP were also similar between the two groups (RR: 1.15, CI: 0.73-1.81,  = 0.56). Other outcomes (overall cannulation rate, cholangitis, perforation, bleeding, use of adjunct techniques) were also comparable. The results of our analysis did not demonstrate a clear benefit of using one guidewire over other. The endoscopist should consider using the guidewire based on his technical skills and convenience.

摘要

导丝管径对内镜逆行胰胆管造影(ERCP)结果的影响尚不清楚。最近的研究在随机对照试验(RCT)中比较了两种导丝,即0.035英寸和0.025英寸的导丝。我们对现有RCT进行了系统评价和荟萃分析,以评估不同管径是否会改变ERCP的结果。通过对PubMed/Medline、Embase、Cochrane、SciELO、全球医学索引和科学网进行系统检索,截至2021年11月23日,以确定比较这两种导丝的相关RCT。使用随机效应模型和DerSimonian-Laird方法比较二元变量。对于每个结果,生成风险比(RR)、95%置信区间(CI)和P值。P<0.05被认为具有显著性。纳入了三项RCT,共1079例患者(0.035英寸组556例,0.025英寸组523例)。两组的初次胆管插管情况相似(RR:1.02,CI:0.96-1.08,P=0.60)。两组的PEP总发生率也相似(RR:1.15,CI:0.73-1.81,P=0.56)。其他结果(总体插管率、胆管炎、穿孔、出血、辅助技术的使用)也具有可比性。我们的分析结果并未表明使用一种导丝比另一种导丝有明显优势。内镜医师应根据其技术水平和便利性来考虑使用导丝。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/ef6c/9286775/be9a1521e46f/10-1055-a-1834-7101-i2686ei4.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/ef6c/9286775/781350a3f7a1/10-1055-a-1834-7101-i2686ei1.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/ef6c/9286775/82f2617c1471/10-1055-a-1834-7101-i2686ei2.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/ef6c/9286775/a368a646eb5c/10-1055-a-1834-7101-i2686ei3.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/ef6c/9286775/be9a1521e46f/10-1055-a-1834-7101-i2686ei4.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/ef6c/9286775/781350a3f7a1/10-1055-a-1834-7101-i2686ei1.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/ef6c/9286775/82f2617c1471/10-1055-a-1834-7101-i2686ei2.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/ef6c/9286775/a368a646eb5c/10-1055-a-1834-7101-i2686ei3.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/ef6c/9286775/be9a1521e46f/10-1055-a-1834-7101-i2686ei4.jpg

相似文献

1
Impact of guidewire caliber on ERCP outcomes: Systematic review and meta-analysis comparing 0.025- and 0.035-inch guidewires.导丝管径对内镜逆行胰胆管造影术(ERCP)结果的影响:比较0.025英寸和0.035英寸导丝的系统评价和荟萃分析
Endosc Int Open. 2022 Jul 15;10(7):E990-E997. doi: 10.1055/a-1834-7101. eCollection 2022 Jul.
2
The impact of wire caliber on ERCP outcomes: a multicenter randomized controlled trial of 0.025-inch and 0.035-inch guidewires.导丝规格对 ERCP 结果的影响:一项 0.025 英寸和 0.035 英寸导丝的多中心随机对照试验。
Gastrointest Endosc. 2018 Jun;87(6):1454-1460. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2017.11.037. Epub 2018 Jan 6.
3
Double-guidewire technique in difficult biliary cannulation for the prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.双导丝技术在预防 ERCP 术后胰腺炎中的应用:一项系统评价和荟萃分析。
Endoscopy. 2017 Jan;49(1):15-26. doi: 10.1055/s-0042-119035. Epub 2016 Dec 20.
4
Comparative efficacy of different methods for difficult biliary cannulation in ERCP: systematic review and network meta-analysis.不同方法在 ERCP 中处理困难胆管插管的疗效比较:系统评价和网络荟萃分析。
Gastrointest Endosc. 2022 Jan;95(1):60-71.e12. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2021.09.010. Epub 2021 Sep 17.
5
Early routine endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography strategy versus early conservative management strategy in acute gallstone pancreatitis.急性胆石性胰腺炎的早期常规内镜逆行胰胆管造影术策略与早期保守治疗策略比较
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012 May 16;2012(5):CD009779. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD009779.pub2.
6
Guide wire-assisted cannulation for the prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.导丝辅助插管预防 ERCP 后胰腺炎:系统评价和荟萃分析。
Endoscopy. 2013 Aug;45(8):605-18. doi: 10.1055/s-0032-1326640. Epub 2013 Jun 27.
7
Comparison of Two Types of Guidewires for Malignant Hilar Biliary Obstruction by Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography: A Randomized Controlled Trial.内镜逆行胰胆管造影术治疗恶性肝门部胆管梗阻两种导丝的比较:一项随机对照试验
J Clin Med. 2023 May 22;12(10):3590. doi: 10.3390/jcm12103590.
8
Meta-Analysis of Early Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) ± Endoscopic Sphincterotomy (ES) Versus Conservative Management for Gallstone Pancreatitis (GSP).早期内镜逆行胰胆管造影(ERCP)±内镜括约肌切开术(ES)与保守治疗胆结石性胰腺炎(GSP)的Meta分析
Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2015 Jun;25(3):185-203. doi: 10.1097/SLE.0000000000000142.
9
Guidewire versus conventional contrast cannulation of the common bile duct for the prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.导丝与传统对比剂胆管插管预防 ERCP 后胰腺炎的比较:系统评价和荟萃分析。
Gastrointest Endosc. 2009 Dec;70(6):1211-9. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2009.08.007.
10
What is impact of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in the prevention of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.非甾体类抗炎药在预防内镜逆行胰胆管造影术后胰腺炎中的作用:一项随机对照试验的荟萃分析
BMC Gastroenterol. 2018 Jul 4;18(1):106. doi: 10.1186/s12876-018-0837-4.

引用本文的文献

1
The Role and Appropriate Selection of Guidewires in Biliopancreatic Endoscopy.导丝在胆胰内镜检查中的作用及合理选择
Medicina (Kaunas). 2025 May 18;61(5):913. doi: 10.3390/medicina61050913.
2
Pre-Cut Papillotomy Versus Endoscopic Ultrasound-Rendezvous for Difficult Biliary Cannulation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.预切开乳头括约肌切开术与内镜超声引导下会师术治疗困难胆管插管的系统评价和荟萃分析
Gastroenterology Res. 2024 Aug;17(4):151-158. doi: 10.14740/gr1738. Epub 2024 Jul 18.
3
Efficacy of a Newly Developed Guidewire for Selective Biliary Cannulation: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial.

本文引用的文献

1
Technical Reports of Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography Guidewires on the Basis of Physical Properties.基于物理特性的内镜逆行胰胆管造影导丝技术报告
Clin Endosc. 2020 Jan;53(1):65-72. doi: 10.5946/ce.2019.114. Epub 2019 Aug 6.
2
The impact of wire caliber on ERCP outcomes: a multicenter randomized controlled trial of 0.025-inch and 0.035-inch guidewires.导丝规格对 ERCP 结果的影响:一项 0.025 英寸和 0.035 英寸导丝的多中心随机对照试验。
Gastrointest Endosc. 2018 Jun;87(6):1454-1460. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2017.11.037. Epub 2018 Jan 6.
3
Papillary cannulation and sphincterotomy techniques at ERCP: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Clinical Guideline.
一种新研发的用于选择性胆管插管的导丝的疗效:一项多中心随机对照试验
J Clin Med. 2023 May 12;12(10):3440. doi: 10.3390/jcm12103440.
经内镜逆行胰胆管造影术(ERCP)中的乳头插管和括约肌切开技术:欧洲胃肠道内镜学会(ESGE)临床指南。
Endoscopy. 2016 Jul;48(7):657-83. doi: 10.1055/s-0042-108641. Epub 2016 Jun 14.
4
Meta-analysis in clinical trials revisited.再谈临床试验中的荟萃分析。
Contemp Clin Trials. 2015 Nov;45(Pt A):139-45. doi: 10.1016/j.cct.2015.09.002. Epub 2015 Sep 4.
5
0.025-inch vs 0.035-inch guide wires for wire-guided cannulation during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: A randomized study.内镜逆行胰胆管造影术中用于导丝引导插管的0.025英寸与0.035英寸导丝:一项随机研究。
World J Gastroenterol. 2015 Aug 14;21(30):9182-8. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v21.i30.9182.
6
Incidence, severity, and mortality of post-ERCP pancreatitis: a systematic review by using randomized, controlled trials.经内镜逆行胰胆管造影术后胰腺炎的发生率、严重程度和死亡率:一项使用随机对照试验的系统评价。
Gastrointest Endosc. 2015 Jan;81(1):143-149.e9. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2014.06.045. Epub 2014 Aug 1.
7
Guide wire-assisted cannulation for the prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.导丝辅助插管预防 ERCP 后胰腺炎:系统评价和荟萃分析。
Endoscopy. 2013 Aug;45(8):605-18. doi: 10.1055/s-0032-1326640. Epub 2013 Jun 27.
8
A prospective randomized study of thin versus regular-sized guide wire in wire-guided cannulation.导丝引导下经皮肝穿刺胆道引流术细导丝与常规导丝随机前瞻性研究
Surg Endosc. 2013 May;27(5):1662-7. doi: 10.1007/s00464-012-2653-1. Epub 2012 Dec 13.
9
The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials.Cochrane 协作网评估随机试验偏倚风险的工具。
BMJ. 2011 Oct 18;343:d5928. doi: 10.1136/bmj.d5928.
10
GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction-GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables.GRADE 指南:1. 简介-GRADE 证据概况和发现摘要表。
J Clin Epidemiol. 2011 Apr;64(4):383-94. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.04.026. Epub 2010 Dec 31.