Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 782

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Early Treatment of Acute Biliary Pancreatitis by Endoscopic Papillotomy

Open access
Fan, Sheung-Tat, Lai, Edward, Mok, Francis, Lo, Chung-Mau, Zheng, Shu-Sen, Wong, John·1993·New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Most patients with acute biliary pancreatitis have stones in the biliary tract or ampulla of Vater. Because these stones may be passed spontaneously soon after a patient is admitted to the hospital, the importance of early operative removal is not known. We tested the hypothesis that endoscopic papillotomy within 24 hours of admission decreased the incidence of complications in patients with acute biliary pancreatitis. METHODS: We studied 195 patients with acute pancreatitis who were randomly assigned to one of two groups: 97 patients underwent within 24 hours after admission emergency endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) followed by endoscopic papillotomy for ampullary and common-bile-duct stones, and 98 patients received initial conservative treatment and selective ERCP with or without endoscopic papillotomy only if their condition deteriorated. RESULTS: One hundred twenty-seven patients ultimately proved to have biliary stones. Emergency ERCP with or without endoscopic papillotomy resulted in a reduction in biliary sepsis as compared with conservative treatment (0 of 97 patients vs. 12 of 98 patients, P = 0.001). The decrease in biliary sepsis occurred both in patients predicted to have mild pancreatitis (0 of 56 patients in the group that received emergency ERCP vs. 4 of 58 patients in the conservative-treatment group, P = 0.14) and in patients predicted to have severe pancreatitis (0 of 41 patients vs. 8 of 40 patients, P = 0.008). In all patients who had unrelenting biliary sepsis, persistent ampullary or common-bile-duct stones were identified. There were no major differences in the incidence of local complications (10 patients in the group that received emergency ERCP vs. 12 patients in the conservative-treatment group) or systemic complications (10 patients vs. 14 patients) of acute pancreatitis between the two groups, but the hospital mortality rate was slightly lower in the group undergoing emergency ERCP with or without endoscopic papillotomy (5 patients vs. 9 patients, P = 0.4). CONCLUSIONS: Emergency ERCP with or without endoscopic papillotomy is indicated in the treatment of patients with acute pancreatitis.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1056/nejm199301283280402

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

See all 782

Metadata

Authors
Fan, S.-T., Lai, E., Mok, F., Lo, C.-M., Zheng, S.-S., & Wong, J.
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Published
1993-01-28
Volume
328
Issue
4
Pages
228-232
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
OpenAlex
W1963641293
Cited by
782
References
0
FWCI
21.52
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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: Early Treatment of Acute Biliary Pancreatitis by Endoscopic Papillotomy. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1056/nejm199301283280402
The paper
Fan, S.-T., Lai, E., Mok, F., Lo, C.-M., Zheng, S.-S., & Wong, J. (1993). Early Treatment of Acute Biliary Pancreatitis by Endoscopic Papillotomy. New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejm199301283280402

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.