2019
DOI: 10.1177/2631774519862895
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Assessing spontaneous passage of prophylactic pancreatic duct stents by X-ray: is a radiology report adequate?

Abstract: Background: Pancreatic duct stents are frequently placed for prophylaxis of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis. Because of concern for possible secondary ductal changes from a retained stent, these stents need to be monitored and removed if retained. Usually an abdominal X-ray is performed to assess retained stent, and if present, an esophagogastroduodenoscopy is performed to remove the stent. Limited data is published on false-negative radiology reports for spontaneous passage of… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
1

Relationship

0
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1 publication
(2 citation statements)
references
References 13 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…A retrospective trial reported a false‐negative rate of 4.8% (8 patients) in 167 patients with pancreatic stents examined by abdominal X‐ray. In eight cases the radiologic report said “no stent” while the retained pancreatic stent was found in three cases during subsequent procedures for indications unrelated to the initial stent placement and five retained stents were identified on a second review of the imaging by an endoscopist 27 . Accordingly, X‐ray is not impeccable in this context.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 98%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…A retrospective trial reported a false‐negative rate of 4.8% (8 patients) in 167 patients with pancreatic stents examined by abdominal X‐ray. In eight cases the radiologic report said “no stent” while the retained pancreatic stent was found in three cases during subsequent procedures for indications unrelated to the initial stent placement and five retained stents were identified on a second review of the imaging by an endoscopist 27 . Accordingly, X‐ray is not impeccable in this context.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…In eight cases the radiologic report said "no stent" while the retained pancreatic stent was found in three cases during subsequent procedures for indications unrelated to the initial stent placement and five retained stents were identified on a second review of the imaging by an endoscopist. 27 Accordingly, X-ray is not impeccable in this context. To use EGD directly without confirmation of stent retention is generally not recommended by international guidelines.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%