Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30996380›Full record

ArticleBeijing da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Peking University. Health sciences2019

[Comparison of the minimally invasive treatments of laparoscopic and endosopic for common bile duct stones after gastrojejunostomy].

L F Zhang, C S Hou, Y H Huang, Z Xu, L X Wang, X F Ling, G Wang, L Cui, D R Xiu

Open access · greenAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Beijing da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Peking University. Health sciences, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 38% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. 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

9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

L F ZhangDepartment of General Surgery, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing 100191, China.
C S HouDepartment of General Surgery, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing 100191, China.
Y H HuangDepartment of Gastroenterology, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing 100191, China.
Z XuDepartment of General Surgery, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing 100191, China.
L X WangDepartment of General Surgery, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing 100191, China.
X F LingDepartment of General Surgery, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing 100191, China.
G WangDepartment of General Surgery, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing 100191, China.
L CuiDepartment of General Surgery, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing 100191, China.
D R XiuDepartment of General Surgery, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing 100191, China.
Peking University Third Hospital · CNPeking University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo explore the feasibility and to compare the merits and demerits of laparoscopic and endoscopic approach in removing common bile duct stones in patients with gastrojejunostomy after gastrectomy.

methodsBetween January 2012 and December 2016, 25 patients with common bile duct stones after gastrojejunostomy received laparoscopic or endoscopic treatment in our centers. They were divided into laparoscopic group and endoscopic group based on treatment approaches for common bile duct stones, including 15 patients in laparoscopic group and 10 in endoscopic group. The clinical characteristics and outcomes between the two groups were retrospectively analyzed.

resultsAmong the 25 patients with gastrojejunostomy, the method of reconstruction was Billroth II in 21 patients and Roux-en-Y in 4 patients. Six patients received laparoscopic or endoscopic treatment during the acute cholangitis state. Among the laparoscopic group, 5 patients with stones more than 1 cm, 7 patients with multiple stones, while in the endoscopic group, 3 patients with stones more than 1 cm and 4 patients with multiple stones. Fourteen patients in the laparoscopic group with coexisting gallbladder stones, and 6 of their common bile duct stones were successfully removed by transcystic approach without T tube drainage. Stone removals were successful in 4 patients of the endoscopic group by a single performance, including 3 patients with single small stone and one patient with multiple small stones. Two patients in the laparoscopic group were converted to open surgery for severe adhesion and one patient in the endoscopic group turned to laparoscopic operation for failing of finding papilla in the Roux-en-Y anastomotic status. The median hospital stays were 12 d and 10 d, respectively in the laparoscopic and endoscopic group. There were 3 patients with postoperative complications, including one patient with paralytic ileus in the laparoscopic group and 2 patients with biliary pancreatitis or bacteremia in the endoscopic group, and all of them recovered uneventfully with conservative treatment.

conclusionBoth laparoscopic and endoscopic approaches are feasible for removing stones in the common bile duct in patients with gastrojejunostomy after gastrectomy, and they complement each other. In addition, both techniques are difficult to conduct, and a technical competence should be considered in selection of each method.

Indexed as

Cholecystectomy, LaparoscopicGastric BypassLaparoscopyCholangiopancreatography, Endoscopic RetrogradeCommon Bile DuctHumansRetrospective Studies

Identifiers

PMID30996380
PMCPMC7441194
OpenAlexW3025564303

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.