FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2001567214> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2001567214 endingPage "52" @default.
• W2001567214 startingPage "45" @default.
• W2001567214 abstract "Background Several prospective studies confirm that prophylactic stent placement in the pancreatic duct (PD) during high-risk ERCP procedures decreases the risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis. Inconsistencies exist regarding the indications for prophylactic PD stent placement, the type of stent used, and stent follow-up. Objective To assess the current practice patterns of expert biliary endoscopists regarding prophylactic pancreatic duct stents. Design An anonymous survey was mailed to 54 expert biliary endoscopists, assessing volume of procedures, stent indications, method of placement, and follow-up. Results A total of 91% (49/54) of surveys were returned and analyzed. Prophylactic PD stents were used by 96% of respondents. Stent use was universal during ampullectomy and pancreatic sphincterotomy. Most also used stents for minor papillotomy (93%) and sphincter of Oddi dysfunction (SOD) confirmed by manometry (82%). Endoscopists disagreed on the following: pre-cut sphincterotomy (71%), prior post-ERCP pancreatitis (64%), suspected SOD (58-69%), and traumatic sphincterotomy (44%). Endoscopists used straight stents (33%), pigtail stents (30%), or a combination (33%). Internal flanges were always used by 14%, never used by 54%, and sometimes used by 32%. Stent size and length varied widely, as did the time stents were left in place, and the retrieval method. Conclusions Expert biliary endoscopists agree that prophylactic PD stenting is indicated during ERCP in high-risk patients. Wide variation exists in patient selection and stent placement technique. Several prospective studies confirm that prophylactic stent placement in the pancreatic duct (PD) during high-risk ERCP procedures decreases the risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis. Inconsistencies exist regarding the indications for prophylactic PD stent placement, the type of stent used, and stent follow-up. To assess the current practice patterns of expert biliary endoscopists regarding prophylactic pancreatic duct stents. An anonymous survey was mailed to 54 expert biliary endoscopists, assessing volume of procedures, stent indications, method of placement, and follow-up. A total of 91% (49/54) of surveys were returned and analyzed. Prophylactic PD stents were used by 96% of respondents. Stent use was universal during ampullectomy and pancreatic sphincterotomy. Most also used stents for minor papillotomy (93%) and sphincter of Oddi dysfunction (SOD) confirmed by manometry (82%). Endoscopists disagreed on the following: pre-cut sphincterotomy (71%), prior post-ERCP pancreatitis (64%), suspected SOD (58-69%), and traumatic sphincterotomy (44%). Endoscopists used straight stents (33%), pigtail stents (30%), or a combination (33%). Internal flanges were always used by 14%, never used by 54%, and sometimes used by 32%. Stent size and length varied widely, as did the time stents were left in place, and the retrieval method. Expert biliary endoscopists agree that prophylactic PD stenting is indicated during ERCP in high-risk patients. Wide variation exists in patient selection and stent placement technique." @default.
• W2001567214 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2001567214 creator A5040166748 @default.
• W2001567214 creator A5043786243 @default.
• W2001567214 creator A5062733745 @default.
• W2001567214 creator A5086466627 @default.
• W2001567214 date "2006-07-01" @default.
• W2001567214 modified "2023-09-24" @default.
• W2001567214 title "A survey of physician practices on prophylactic pancreatic stents" @default.
• W2001567214 cites W1966240639 @default.
• W2001567214 cites W1973745923 @default.
• W2001567214 cites W1992372757 @default.
• W2001567214 cites W2021582810 @default.
• W2001567214 cites W2034862228 @default.
• W2001567214 cites W2042937625 @default.
• W2001567214 cites W2055011751 @default.
• W2001567214 cites W2089545523 @default.
• W2001567214 cites W2092103192 @default.
• W2001567214 cites W2095008137 @default.
• W2001567214 cites W2116827291 @default.
• W2001567214 cites W2168046530 @default.
• W2001567214 cites W82338767 @default.
• W2001567214 doi "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2006.01.058" @default.
• W2001567214 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16813802" @default.
• W2001567214 hasPublicationYear "2006" @default.
• W2001567214 type Work @default.
• W2001567214 sameAs 2001567214 @default.
• W2001567214 citedByCount "56" @default.
• W2001567214 countsByYear W20015672142012 @default.
• W2001567214 countsByYear W20015672142013 @default.
• W2001567214 countsByYear W20015672142014 @default.
• W2001567214 countsByYear W20015672142015 @default.
• W2001567214 countsByYear W20015672142016 @default.
• W2001567214 countsByYear W20015672142017 @default.
• W2001567214 countsByYear W20015672142018 @default.
• W2001567214 countsByYear W20015672142020 @default.
• W2001567214 countsByYear W20015672142021 @default.
• W2001567214 countsByYear W20015672142023 @default.
• W2001567214 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2001567214 hasAuthorship W2001567214A5040166748 @default.
• W2001567214 hasAuthorship W2001567214A5043786243 @default.
• W2001567214 hasAuthorship W2001567214A5062733745 @default.
• W2001567214 hasAuthorship W2001567214A5086466627 @default.
• W2001567214 hasConcept C120665830 @default.
• W2001567214 hasConcept C121332964 @default.
• W2001567214 hasConcept C126838900 @default.
• W2001567214 hasConcept C141071460 @default.
• W2001567214 hasConcept C152365676 @default.
• W2001567214 hasConcept C194232370 @default.
• W2001567214 hasConcept C2775967933 @default.
• W2001567214 hasConcept C2777891700 @default.
• W2001567214 hasConcept C2778451229 @default.
• W2001567214 hasConcept C2778583881 @default.
• W2001567214 hasConcept C2779777945 @default.
• W2001567214 hasConcept C2779960720 @default.
• W2001567214 hasConcept C2780892919 @default.
• W2001567214 hasConcept C2993327771 @default.
• W2001567214 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2001567214 hasConceptScore W2001567214C120665830 @default.
• W2001567214 hasConceptScore W2001567214C121332964 @default.
• W2001567214 hasConceptScore W2001567214C126838900 @default.
• W2001567214 hasConceptScore W2001567214C141071460 @default.
• W2001567214 hasConceptScore W2001567214C152365676 @default.
• W2001567214 hasConceptScore W2001567214C194232370 @default.
• W2001567214 hasConceptScore W2001567214C2775967933 @default.
• W2001567214 hasConceptScore W2001567214C2777891700 @default.
• W2001567214 hasConceptScore W2001567214C2778451229 @default.
• W2001567214 hasConceptScore W2001567214C2778583881 @default.
• W2001567214 hasConceptScore W2001567214C2779777945 @default.
• W2001567214 hasConceptScore W2001567214C2779960720 @default.
• W2001567214 hasConceptScore W2001567214C2780892919 @default.
• W2001567214 hasConceptScore W2001567214C2993327771 @default.
• W2001567214 hasConceptScore W2001567214C71924100 @default.
• W2001567214 hasIssue "1" @default.
• W2001567214 hasLocation W20015672141 @default.
• W2001567214 hasLocation W20015672142 @default.
• W2001567214 hasOpenAccess W2001567214 @default.
• W2001567214 hasPrimaryLocation W20015672141 @default.
• W2001567214 hasRelatedWork W173137978 @default.
• W2001567214 hasRelatedWork W1969068274 @default.
• W2001567214 hasRelatedWork W2001567214 @default.
• W2001567214 hasRelatedWork W2030020455 @default.
• W2001567214 hasRelatedWork W2046276733 @default.
• W2001567214 hasRelatedWork W2092103192 @default.
• W2001567214 hasRelatedWork W2101607932 @default.
• W2001567214 hasRelatedWork W2159476632 @default.
• W2001567214 hasRelatedWork W2329685363 @default.
• W2001567214 hasRelatedWork W2564379640 @default.
• W2001567214 hasVolume "64" @default.
• W2001567214 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2001567214 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2001567214 magId "2001567214" @default.
• W2001567214 workType "article" @default.