ArticleBMC gastroenterology2022
Residual choledocholithiasis after choledocholithotomy T-tube drainage: what is the best intervention strategy?
Article in BMC gastroenterology, 2022. 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy and safety of primary suture following laparoscopic common bile duct exploration in the treatment of elderly patients with cholecystolithiasis complicated by choledocholithiasis.Frontiers in surgery · 2025Article
- Diagnostic value of T-tube cholangiography and choledochoscopy in residual calculi after biliary surgery.BMC gastroenterology · 2024Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe best intervention approach for residual choledocholithiasis after choledocholithotomy T-tube drainage remains controversial, especially during the period of indwelling T tube and the formation of a sinus. The purpose of the study was to estimate the effects of two therapeutic modalities, namely endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and choledochfiberscope via the T-tube sinus tract (CDS) on residual choledocholithiasis after choledocholithotomy T-tube drainage.
methodsA total of 112 patients with residual choledocholithiasis after choledochotomy were included in the study, 50 of which underwent ERCP and 62 patients experienced choledochoscopy via the T-tube sinus tract. The primary outcome measures included the success rate of remove biliary stones, T-tube drainage time, and the average length of hospital stay. The secondary objective was to consider incidence of adverse events including cholangitis, bile leakage, T-tube migration, pancreatitis, bleeding and perforation. After hospital discharge, patients were followed up for two years and the recurrence of choledocholithiasis was recorded.
resultsThere was no significant difference in the success rate of stone removal between the two groups. Compared to CDS group, T-tube drainage time and the average length of hospital stay was significantly shorter in the ERCP group. The incidence of complications (cholangitis and bile leakage) in the ERCP group was lower than that in the CDS group, but there was no statistically significant difference. When the T-tube sinus tract is not maturation, ERCP was the more appropriate endoscopic intervention to remove residual choledocholithiasis, particularly complicated with cholangitis at this time period.
conclusionsERCP is a safe and effective endoscopic intervention to remove residual choledocholithiasis after choledocholithotomy T-tube Drainage without the condition of T-tube sinus tract restriction.
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.