ArticleBMC gastroenterology2023
Large common bile duct stones in high-risk elderly patients: Immediate endoscopic stone removal or elective stone removal? A single-center retrospective study.
Article in BMC gastroenterology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06948279 (Immediate Versus Elective Endoscopic Removal of Large Common Bile Duct Stones in High-Risk Elderly Patients), which is not on this map. Cited by 6 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.
Immediate Versus Elective Endoscopic Removal of Large Common Bile Duct Stones in High-Risk Elderly Patients
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy and safety of immediate vs. delayed endoscopic retrieval of large or multiple common bile duct stones in high-risk elderly patients: a prospective, randomized comparative study.Clinical and experimental medicine · 2025Trial
- Beyond chronological age: a decision tree model integrating nutritional and renal function indicators for risk prediction in pre-frail older adults with hepatolithiasis.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- A risk score model for post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography complications in elderly patients with choledocholithiasis.Saudi journal of gastroenterology : official journal of the Saudi Gastroenterology Association · 2025Article
- Efficacy of double half-pigtail plastic stents for endoscopic biliary drainage of acute calculous cholangitis.Clinical endoscopy · 2025Article
- Review
- Comparison of ERCP Outcomes and Complication Risk between Elderly and Younger Patients: A Large Single-Center Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectiveFor high-risk elderly patients with chronic diseases, endoscopic stone removal for large common bile duct stones is associated with a high risk of adverse events and incomplete stone removal. The aim of this study was to investigate whether the treatment strategy of short-term biliary plastic stent placement followed by elective endoscopic stone removal is more effective and safer than immediate endoscopic stone removal.
methodsThe data of 262 high-risk elderly patients who received endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) for large common bile duct (CBD) stones from 2017 to 2022 were retrospectively analyzed. The patients were divided into group A (immediate stone removal) and group B (stent drainage + elective stone removal). The baseline data of the 2 groups were matched 1:1 by propensity score matching. The stone clearance rate, ERCP procedure time, total hospital stay, and procedure-related adverse events were compared between the matched groups. In group B, stone size before and after stent placement, hospital stay, procedure time and adverse events of two ERCPs were compared.
resultsA total of 57 pairs of patients were successfully matched between the 2 groups. The stone clearance rate in group B was higher than that in group A (89.5% vs. 75.3, P = 0.049). The total hospital stay in group B was longer than that in group A (11.86 ± 3.912 d vs. 19.14 ± 3.176 d, P<0.001). The total adverse event rate in group A was higher than that in group B (29.8% vs. 12.3%, P = 0.005). The incidence of cholangitis/cholecystitis after ERCP was significantly higher in group A than in group B (7.0% vs. 0.9% P = 0.029). There was no significant difference in the incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis, bleeding, pneumonia, and cardio-cerebrovascular events between the 2 groups. There were no perforation cases in either group. After plastic biliary stent placement in group B, the stone size was significantly smaller than before stent placement (1.59 ± 0.544 cm vs. 1.95 ± 0.543 cm, P < 0.001), and there was no significant difference in the total adverse event incidence between the two ERCP procedures (18.8% vs. 10.9%, P = 0.214).
conclusionFor high-risk elderly patients with large CBD stones, the treatment strategy involving temporary placement of plastic stent and elective endoscopic stone removal is safer and more effective than immediate stone removal.
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.