Evidence Hub

Current use and utility of magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, and pancreatic duct stents: A secondary analysis from the Western Trauma Association multicenter trials group on pancreatic injuries

W. Biffl, C. Ball, Ernest E. Moore, Michael West, Rachel M. Russo, Z. Balogh, L. Kornblith, Matthew R. Castelo

Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery, 2023

1,243 participants · 11 citations

Abstract

Secondary analysis of patients from multicenter study identifies inaccuracies in MRCP. The utility of endoscopic stenting remains to be clarified. INTRODUCTION The single most important predictor of pancreas-specific complications (PSCs) after pancreatic trauma is injury to the main pancreatic duct (MPD). Pancreatography has been recommended to evaluate the integrity of the MPD. In addition, pancreatic duct stents have been proposed to prevent or treat PSC. The primary purpose of this study was to determine the accuracy of magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) in diagnosing MPD injury. We further sought to determine whether stents were effective in preventing PSC or facilitated the resolution of pancreatic leaks or fistulae. METHODS A secondary analysis of a multicenter retrospective review of pancreatic injuries in patients 15 years and older from 2010 to 2018, focusing on patients who underwent MRCP or endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), was performed. Final pancreatic injury grade was determined based on all available assessments, ultimately adjudicated by the site principal investigator. Data were analyzed using various statistical tests where appropriate. RESULTS Thirty-three centers reported on 1,243 patients. A total of 216 underwent pancreatography—137 had MRCP and 115 ERCP, with 36 having both. The sensitivity of MRCP for MPD injury was 37%, the specificity was 94%, the positive predictive value was 77%, and the negative predictive…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a secondary / pooled analysis. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 1,243 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free