ReviewDigestive endoscopy : official journal of the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society2026
Advances in Diagnosis and Treatment With Cholangiopancreatoscopy.
Review in Digestive endoscopy : official journal of the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- New Horizons in Cholangiopancreatoscopy: Where Are We Heading in 2026?Digestive endoscopy : official journal of the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society · 2026Article
- Comprehensive Gene Panel Analysis of Biliary Tract Cancer Using Next-Generation Sequencing of Endoscopic Transpapillary Brushing/Biopsy/Aspiration Specimens: A Narrative Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) remains the standard for diagnosing and treating pancreatobiliary diseases. Although non-invasive imaging modalities have significantly improved, ERCP continues to play an indispensable role in clinical practice. However, ERCP has inherent limitations. Diagnostic challenges persist in cases of indeterminate biliary strictures, and stone extraction can be difficult when stones are large, impacted, or located within anatomically complex regions. To address these limitations, direct visualization of the bile and pancreatic ducts using peroral cholangioscopy (POCS) and peroral pancreatoscopy (POPS) has gained increasing attention. These techniques enable targeted biopsies under direct vision, thereby enhancing diagnostic accuracy for indeterminate strictures. In addition, advanced intraductal lithotripsy modalities, such as electrohydraulic lithotripsy and laser lithotripsy, can be delivered through cholangioscopes, allowing effective fragmentation of stones that are refractory to conventional ERCP-based techniques. Recent advances in digital cholangioscopes have further improved image resolution, maneuverability, and irrigation control, broadening their clinical utility. Despite these technological improvements, POCS and POPS remain technically demanding, and their indications must be carefully selected according to ductal anatomy and the clinical scenario. In particular, the narrow diameter of the main pancreatic duct limits the application of POPS, restricting its use to specific situations, such as intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms or indeterminate ductal strictures. Overall, the integration of cholangioscopy and intraductal lithotripsy into ERCP practice represents a significant advancement, enabling more precise diagnosis and expanding therapeutic options for complex pancreatobiliary disorders. This narrative review summarizes recent progress in diagnostic and therapeutic applications of cholangiopancreatography in pancreatobiliary disease.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.