ArticleAnnals of surgery1987
A scientific evaluation of operative choledochoscopy in acute cholangitis.
Article in Annals of surgery, 1987. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- OUR EXPERIENCE WITH DIAGNOSTIC AND THERAPEUTIC CHOLEDOCHOSCOPY.Medical journal, Armed Forces India · 1997Article
- Open common bile duct exploration--end of an epoch?Irish journal of medical scienceArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A prospective study to determine the safety and effectiveness of choledochoscopy in acute cholangitis and acute suppurative cholangitis due to common bile duct stones was conducted on 70 patients. Common bile duct pressures determined on the first 20 patients showed that choledochoscopy was unlikely to cause cholangiovenous reflux. Laboratory and clinical parameters revealed that choledochoscopy did not cause septicemia, worsen cholangitis, or provoke acute pancreatitis. There was no iatrogenic injury during choledochoscopy, and the choledochoscopic views were minimally affected by cholangitis. Choledochoscopy detected overlooked stones after conventional methods of exploration of common bile ducts in 14.3% of patients and it helped to remove impacted stones in 2.9% of patients. As a result, the incidence of retained stones after choledochoscopy was 1.4%. Time spent in choledochoscopy was short, and the total postoperative septic complication rate was only 10%. There was no operative mortality. It is concluded that choledochoscopy is safe and effective in cholangitis.
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.