Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigSuggestions(1)
Exact(6)
13– 14 Using a phantom biliary model we found a high rate of technical success with the free-hand direct insertion technique using these endoscopes.
Superior diagnostic accuracy and tissue acquisition was obtained with the 19G needle; however, there was a high rate of technical failure for lesions in the head of pancreas.
These two techniques are safe and comparable but have only limited value for GIST diagnostic because of a high rate of technical failure.
As an alternative, PTBD reportedly has a high rate of technical success and theoretically, is associated with a lower incidence of cholangitis because there is no retrograde bacterial contamination from the gut.
However, despite our extensive experience with the technology, MLPA showed a high rate of technical failure in uncultured AF samples, likely due to the low purity of the DNA obtained (salt and/or protein contamination).
As an alternative, PTBD has a high rate of technical success because it offers selective segmental drainage, and it has a theoretically lower incidence of cholangitis because there is no retrograde bacterial contamination from the gut.
Similar(54)
Recently, it was demonstrated that cement-retained prostheses had a higher rate of technical and biological complications [1], despite a better passive fit than the screw-retained restorations [2].
On the contrary, BES had a higher rate of technical failure than Wingspan stents (7.1% versus 1.4%, P < 0.001).
However, preoperative EBD in PHC is associated with a high rate of complications: technical failures may occur because proximal tumors at the liver hilum are difficult to cannulate endoscopically; cholangitis may occur because isolated bile ducts with segmental obstruction may be left undrained after contrast injection; and pancreatitis may occur after repeated attempts at contrast injection.
That's a high rate of success.
It received a high rate of satisfaction.
Write better and faster with AI suggestions while staying true to your unique style.
Since I tried Ludwig back in 2017, I have been constantly using it in both editing and translation. Ever since, I suggest it to my translators at ProSciEditing.

Justyna Jupowicz-Kozak
CEO of Professional Science Editing for Scientists @ prosciediting.com