ArticleOncotarget2017
Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography versus laparoscopic exploration for common bile duct stones in post-cholecystectomy patients: a retrospective study.
Article in Oncotarget, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for cholelithiasis 2021.Journal of gastroenterology · 2023Review
- Experience of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography with side-viewing duodenoscope in patients with previous gastric surgery.Turkish journal of surgery · 2022Article
- Retroperitoneal perforation of a duodenal diverticulum containing a large enterolith after Roux-en-Y bypass and cholecystectomy.Journal of surgical case reports · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectiveCommon bile duct (CBD) stones are common in patients even after cholecystectomy. Besides endoscopic retrograde cholangiography (ERCP), laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) is also applied. This study aims to compare clinical indications, therapeutic benefits and complications for these two managements.
methodsFrom October 2012 to February 2015, 1072 consecutive patients were diagnosed as choledocholithiasis in our single hospital. Post-cholecystectomy patients who underwent ERCP or LCBDE were included. Clinical data were analyzed, such as success rate, complications, procedure duration, postoperative hospital stay, total cost and recurrence of ductal stones. Prior ERCP, previous biliary anatomic alteration surgeries and lost to follow up were the excluding criteria.
results141 patients were included according to the criteria, and 87 cases underwent ERCP and 54 cases underwent LCBDE. Age and sex distribution of patients were comparable between the two groups. The success rate for CBD stones clearance was 97.7% in the ERCP group, compared with 87.0% in the LCBDE group (
conclusionsFor clearing CBD stones in patients after cholecystectomy, ERCP was more efficient and might be the first choice, while LCBDE might be beneficial for patients with large stones.
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.