Copyright: ©Author(s) 2027.
World J Gastroenterol. Jan 7, 2027; 33(1): 125390
Published online Jan 7, 2027. doi: 10.3748/wjg.125390
Published online Jan 7, 2027. doi: 10.3748/wjg.125390
Table 1 Demographic and clinical characteristics at baseline, n (%)/mean ± SD
| Characteristics | DSOC group | FSOC group | P value |
| Sex | 0.5763 | ||
| Male | 27 (46.55) | 29 (51.79) | |
| Female | 31 (53.45) | 27 (48.21) | |
| Age (years) | 57.09 ± 12.86 | 57.50 ± 13.46 | 0.8683 |
| Weight (kg) | 57.79 ± 10.95 | 59.46 ± 11.50 | 0.4284 |
| Pulse (bpm) | 76.67 ± 12.52 | 76.09 ± 13.14 | 0.8087 |
| SBP (mmHg) | 123.90 ± 19.74 | 125.71 ± 20.91 | 0.6340 |
| DBP (mmHg) | 76.95 ± 11.76 | 77.32 ± 11.07 | 0.8619 |
| RBC (1012/L) | 4.13 ± 0.63 | 4.31 ± 0.63 | 0.1351 |
| WBC (109/L) | 6.80 ± 3.75 | 6.74 ± 2.83 | 0.9150 |
| PLT (109/L) | 213.12 ± 80.13 | 226.86 ± 78.71 | 0.3580 |
| PT (seconds) | 12.42 ± 1.27 | 12.25 ± 1.18 | 0.4639 |
| APTT (seconds) | 31.46 ± 4.05 | 30.66 ± 3.96 | 0.2927 |
| Alb (g/L) | 41.00 ± 4.54 | 41.55 ± 4.98 | 0.5373 |
| ALT (U/L) | 77.58 ± 115.01 | 88.00 ± 112.27 | 0.6256 |
| Cr (μmol/L) | 76.49 ± 28.33 | 71.49 ± 15.36 | 0.2463 |
| BUN (mmol/L) | 4.81 ± 2.09 | 4.39 ± 1.44 | 0.2195 |
Table 2 Surgical approaches and concomitant instruments for the cholangioscopy operation, n (%)
| Surgical approaches | DSOC group | FSOC group | P value |
| Laparoscopic choledochendysis | 24 (41.38) | 28 (50.00) | 0.3556 |
| T-tube sinus tract | 34 (58.62) | 28 (50.00) | |
| Stone retrieval basket | |||
| Without | 45 (77.59) | 43 (76.79) | 0.9189 |
| With | 13 (22.41) | 13 (23.21) |
Table 3 Image acquisition data for cholangioscopy, n (%)
| Participant numbers based on image contents | DSOC group | FSOC group | P value |
| Common bile duct | 1.0000 | ||
| Absent | 2 (3.45) | 1 (1.79) | |
| Present | 56 (96.55) | 55 (98.21) | |
| First-order biliary branches | 0.4957 | ||
| Absent | 56 (96.55) | 56 (100.00) | |
| Present | 2 (3.45) | 0 (0.00) | |
| Second-order biliary branches | 0.2436 | ||
| Absent | 55 (94.83) | 56 (100.00) | |
| Present | 3 (5.17) | 0 (0.00) | |
| Confluence of second-order biliary branches | 0.0550 | ||
| Absent | 0 (0.00) | 4 (7.14) | |
| Present | 58 (100.00) | 52 (92.86) | |
| Stone | 0.8488 | ||
| Absent | 29 (50.00) | 29 (51.79) | |
| Present | 29 (50.00) | 27 (48.21) | |
| Stone retrieval basket/holmium laser fiber | 0.1339 | ||
| Absent | 33 (56.90) | 24 (42.86) | |
| Present | 25 (43.10) | 32 (57.14) | |
| Biliary mucosa | |||
| Absent | 0 (0.00) | 0 (0.00) | |
| Present | 58 (100.00) | 56 (100.00) | |
| Image numbers based on biliary locations | |||
| Common bile duct | 100 (59.17) | 110 (65.48) | 0.0411 |
| Second-order biliary branches | 5 (2.96) | 0 (0.00) | |
| First-order biliary branches | 2 (1.18) | 0 (0.00) | |
| Confluence of second-order biliary branches | 62 (36.69) | 58 (34.52) | |
| Image numbers based on captured contents | |||
| Stone | 29 (17.16) | 27 (16.07) | 0.6765 |
| Stone retrieval basket/holmium laser fiber | 27 (15.98) | 33 (19.64) | |
| Biliary mucosa | 113 (66.86) | 108 (64.29) |
Table 4 Image quality evaluation for cholangioscopy, n (%)
| Image quality evaluation | DSOC group | FSOC group | P value |
| Excellent | 157 (92.90) | 27 (16.07) | < 0.0001 |
| Good | 11 (6.51) | 140 (83.33) | |
| Ordinary | 1 (0.59) | 1 (0.60) | |
| Very poor | 0 (0.00) | 0 (0.00) | |
| Poor | 0 (0.00) | 0 (0.00) |
Table 5 Non-inferiority test concerning the image quality compliance rate for clinical diagnostic requirements, n (%)
| Study group | n | Image quality compliance rate for clinical diagnostic requirements | Rate difference (95%CI) |
| DSOC group | 58 | 57 (98.28) | 0.0615% (-7.4994% to 7.8518%) |
| FSOC group | 56 | 55 (98.21) |
Table 6 Cholangioscopy performance scored by operator, n (%)
| Performance metrics | DSOC group | FSOC group | P value |
| Insertion | < 0.0001 | ||
| 1 | 0 (0.00) | 0 (0.00) | |
| 2 | 0 (0.00) | 0 (0.00) | |
| 3 | 0 (0.00) | 0 (0.00) | |
| 4 | 14 (24.14) | 43 (76.79) | |
| 5 | 44 (75.86) | 13 (23.21) | |
| Withdrawal | < 0.0001 | ||
| 1 | 0 (0.00) | 0 (0.00) | |
| 2 | 0 (0.00) | 0 (0.00) | |
| 3 | 0 (0.00) | 0 (0.00) | |
| 4 | 11 (18.97) | 41 (73.21) | |
| 5 | 47 (81.03) | 15 (26.79) | |
| Sealing | 0.0090 | ||
| 1 | 0 (0.00) | 0 (0.00) | |
| 2 | 3 (5.17) | 0 (0.00) | |
| 3 | 5 (8.62) | 15 (26.79) | |
| 4 | 50 (86.21) | 41 (73.21) | |
| Angulation | < 0.0001 | ||
| 1 | 0 (0.00) | 0 (0.00) | |
| 2 | 0 (0.00) | 0 (0.00) | |
| 3 | 3 (5.17) | 8 (14.29) | |
| 4 | 19 (32.76) | 37 (66.07) | |
| 5 | 36 (62.07) | 11 (19.64) | |
| Accessory insertion and withdrawal | 0.2923 | ||
| 1 | 0 (0.00) | 0 (0.00) | |
| 2 | 0 (0.00) | 0 (0.00) | |
| 3 | 2 (6.25) | 2 (5.71) | |
| 4 | 14 (43.75) | 22 (62.86) | |
| 5 | 16 (50.00) | 11 (31.43) | |
| Accessory compatibility | 0.0016 | ||
| 1 | 0 (0.00) | 0 (0.00) | |
| 2 | 0 (0.00) | 0 (0.00) | |
| 3 | 4 (12.50) | 2 (5.71) | |
| 4 | 9 (28.12) | 25 (71.43) | |
| 5 | 19 (59.38) | 8 (22.86) |
Table 7 Adverse event occurrence status of the participants, n (%)
| Adverse events | DSOC group | FSOC group | P value |
| Occurrence | 0.576 | ||
| No | 31 (53.4) | 27 (48.2) | |
| Yes | 27 (46.6) | 29 (51.8) | |
| Serious adverse events | |||
| Occurrence | 0.98 | ||
| No | 57 (98.28) | 55 (98.21) | |
| Yes | 1 (1.72) | 1 (1.79) |
Table 8 Adverse event profiles of the participants, n (%)
| Nonserious events | DSOC group | FSOC group | P value |
| Fever | 5 (8.62) | 6 (10.71) | 0.629 |
| Nausea and vomiting | 4 (6.90) | 2 (3.57) | |
| Abdominal pain | 17 (29.31) | 20 (35.71) | |
| Serious events | |||
| Shock | 0 | 1 (1.79) | 1.000 |
| Peritonitis | 1 (1.72) | 0 |
- Citation: Xie Y, Qiu JY, Ju M, Cai SR, Kang GF, Guo P, Tang ZL, Cao PH, Zhong KB. Efficacy and safety of disposable digital single-operator cholangioscopy: A noninferiority, multicenter, randomized, open-label, blinded endpoint trial. World J Gastroenterol 2027; 33(1): 125390
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1007-9327/full/v33/i1/125390.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3748/wjg.125390