Trial reportSurgical endoscopy2016
Do not rush for surgery; stent placement may be an effective step for definitive treatment of initially unextractable common bile duct stones with ERCP.
Trial report in Surgical endoscopy, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Delay for cholecystectomy after common bile duct clearance with ERCP is just running after recurrent biliary event.Surgical endoscopy · 2023Article
- Is the use of fully covered metal stents effective in the treatment of difficult lithiasis of the common bile duct?Surgical endoscopy · 2022Article
- Predictive factors for extraction of common bile duct stones during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in Billroth II anatomy patients.Surgical endoscopy · 2020Article
- Emergency general surgery in pregnancy.Trauma surgery & acute care open · 2017Review
- Double Plastic Stents as a Bridging Strategy for Large Common Bile Duct Stones: A Case Report of Two Patients.Case reports in gastroenterologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsEndoscopically unextractable common bile duct stones may be challenging for the endoscopist. In this study, we investigated the rate of stone removal after the endoscopic insertion of a biliary stent in patients with common bile duct stones unextractable via ERCP.
methodsRecords of patients with common bile duct stone/s who underwent ERCP at single center were retrospectively analyzed. Only patients with common bile duct stone/s who had a stent placed due to unyielding stone removal were eligible for inclusion into this study. Endoscopic biliary stents were placed in cases of unextractable stone. After a follow-up period, a second ERCP procedure was performed. Major outcomes were the rate of stent insertion because of unextractable bile duct stones, the rate of spontaneous stone passage and the rate of stone extraction after the endoscopic insertion of a biliary stent.
resultsA total of 66 (28%) patients had a stent placed due to unyielding attempts for stone removal, and 43 patients were included in the study. The second ERCP procedure revealed that 10 patients (23%) had spontaneous stone passage and 5 (12%) had spontaneous passage of both the stone and the stent. In the second procedure, biliary balloon was used successfully to extract the retained stone in 22 (51%) patients. Thus, a total of 37 patients (86%) with retained stones had a successful stone extraction during the second ERCP procedure.
conclusionBiliary stenting may be an effective step for definitive treatment of initially unextractable common bile duct stones with ERCP.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.