Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28809384›Full record

ArticleThe American journal of gastroenterology2017

The Impact of Cholecystectomy After Endoscopic Sphincterotomy for Complicated Gallstone Disease.

B Joseph Elmunzer, Mohamed Noureldin, Katherine A Morgan, David B Adams, Gregory A Coté, Akbar K Waljee

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in The American journal of gastroenterology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
4.9field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 41 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Laparoscopic Transcystic Common Bile Duct Exploration: 8-Year Experience at a Single Institution.Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2023
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

B Joseph ElmunzerDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina, USA.
Mohamed NoureldinDivision of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan Medical Center, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.
Katherine A MorganDivision of Gastrointestinal and Laparoscopic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina, USA.
David B AdamsDivision of Gastrointestinal and Laparoscopic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina, USA.
Gregory A CotéDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina, USA.
Akbar K WaljeeDivision of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan Medical Center, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.
Medical University of South Carolina · USUniversity of Michigan–Ann Arbor · USVA Ann Arbor Healthcare System · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesCholecystectomy after endoscopic sphincterotomy (ES) is associated with improved outcomes compared to ES alone, however randomized trials have included mainly fit surgical candidates. Our objective was to assess the impact of cholecystectomy after ES among elderly patients, in whom the perceived risks of surgery may be increased and the prevailing bias may be to defer cholecystectomy.

methodsWe performed adjusted analyses comparing clinical outcomes in patients ≥65 years of age who did and did not undergo follow-up cholecystectomy after endoscopic sphincterotomy for choledocholithiasis, ascending cholangitis, or gallstone pancreatitis. We also compared adverse events between the two groups.

resultsIn the ES alone group, 39.3% of patients experienced a recurrent complication compared with 18.0% in the ES and cholecystectomy group. After adjusting for comorbidities using multivariable regression, cholecystectomy in addition to ES was associated with a reduced risk of recurrent choledocholithiasis (OR 0.38, 95%CI 0.34-0.42, P<0.001), ascending cholangitis (OR 0.28, 95%CI 0.23-0.34, P<0.001), and gallstone pancreatitis (OR 0.35, 95%CI 0.24-0.49, P<0.001) compared to ES alone. This benefit was preserved after propensity score adjustment, in patients ≥75 years of age, and in those with major comorbidities including cancer, heart failure, and liver disease. Serious post-operative complications such as myocardial infarction, pulmonary embolism, and pneumonia were not more common in the cholecystectomy group.

conclusionsAmong older patients, including those with serious comorbidities, cholecystectomy after endoscopic sphincterotomy was associated with a significant and clinically important reduction in recurrent complications compared to sphincterotomy alone. This benefit did not appear to be outweighed by surgical complications, highlighting the importance of cholecystectomy, even in elderly patients whose lifespans may be limited by unrelated conditions.

Indexed as

CholangitisCholecystectomyPancreatitisPostoperative ComplicationsSphincterotomy, EndoscopicAgedCholedocholithiasisCohort StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMultiple Chronic ConditionsPatient Outcome AssessmentPropensity ScoreRecurrenceRetrospective Studies

Identifiers

PMID28809384
OpenAlexW2750374196

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.