The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The Efficacy of Endoscopic Sphincterotomy after Cholecystectomy in Patients with Sphincter-of-Oddi Dysfunction
Abstract
Forty-seven patients thought to have dysfunction of the sphincter of Oddi were randomly assigned to undergo endoscopic sphincterotomy or sham sphincterotomy in a prospective double-blind study. All the patients had pain resembling biliary pain, had previously undergone a cholecystectomy, and had clinical characteristics suggesting biliary obstruction. The patients were randomly assigned to the treatment (n = 23) or nontreatment (n = 24) group before manometric examination of the sphincter of Oddi was performed. Sphincterotomy resulted in improvement in pain scores at one-year follow-up in 10 of 11 patients with elevated sphincter pressure. In contrast, there was improvement in only 3 of 12 patients with elevated basal sphincter pressures who underwent the sham procedure. In patients with normal sphincter pressure, pain scores were similar regardless of treatment. After one year, sphincterotomy was performed in 12 symptomatic patients who had undergone the sham procedure--7 with elevated sphincter pressures and 5 with normal sphincter pressures. Forty patients were followed for four years. Of the 23 patients with increased sphincter pressure, 10 of the original 11 who underwent sphincterotomy remained virtually free of pain; 7 others who subsequently underwent sphincterotomy also benefited from it. Thus, 17 of 18 patients with sphincter-of-Oddi dysfunction verified by manometry benefited from sphincterotomy. In patients with normal sphincter pressure, sphincterotomy was no more beneficial than sham therapy. Our observations suggest that endoscopic sphincterotomy offers long-term relief of pain in a group of patients with verified sphincter-of-Oddi dysfunction.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Risk factors for post-ERCP pancreatitis: A prospective, multicenter study
Freeman, M. L., DiSario, J. A., Nelson, D. B., Fennerty, M. B., Lee, J. G., Bjorkman, D. J., Overby, C. S., Aas, J., Ryan, M. E., Bochna, G. S., et al. (2001) · Gastrointestinal Endoscopy · doi:10.1067/mge.2001.117550 · Cited by 1,253
Jonas, W. B., Crawford, C., Colloca, L., Kaptchuk, T. J., Moseley, B., Miller, F. G., Kriston, L., Linde, K., & Meissner, K. (2015) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2015-009655 · Cited by 183
Metadata
- Authors
- Geenen, J. E., Hogan, W. J., Dodds, W. J., Toouli, J., & Venu, R. P.
- Venue
- New England Journal of Medicine
- Publisher
- Massachusetts Medical Society
- Published
- 1989-01-12
- Volume
- 320
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 82-87
- ISSN
- 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
- 1533-4406
- OpenAlex
- W2330014007
- Cited by
- 489
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 20.04
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The Efficacy of Endoscopic Sphincterotomy after Cholecystectomy in Patients with Sphincter-of-Oddi Dysfunction. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1056/nejm198901123200203
- The paper
- Geenen, J. E., Hogan, W. J., Dodds, W. J., Toouli, J., & Venu, R. P. (1989). The Efficacy of Endoscopic Sphincterotomy after Cholecystectomy in Patients with Sphincter-of-Oddi Dysfunction. New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejm198901123200203
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.