ArticleAbdominal radiology (New York)2024
Comparing percutaneous transhepatic papillary balloon dilation with endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in elderly patients for common bile duct stones: a 3-year retrospective study.
Article in Abdominal radiology (New York), 2024. 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.
- Analysis of risk factors for bile leakage after laparoscopic exploration and primary suture of common bile duct.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2025Article
- Percutaneous transhepatic papillary ballooning and extraction for common bile duct stones: a single-center experience.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo assess the safety and effectiveness of PTPBD for CBD stones in the elderly population.
methodsPatients aged 60 years or older, who underwent PTPBD or ERCP for CBD stones between January 2021 and December 2023, were included in this study and divided into either the PTPBD group or the ERCP group based on the procedure they underwent. Baseline characteristics, intraoperative and postoperative outcomes were collected and analyzed using SPSS 25.0.
resultsA total of 145 cases were enrolled in the study. In terms of intraoperative complications, one patient in the ERCP group experienced hemorrhaging, while one patient in the PTPBD group experienced acute pain. However, neither of these patients were in a serious condition and only required observation. Stone removal procedures were successfully conducted in approximately 95% of cases in both the PTPBD and ERCP groups (95.8 and 94.8%, respectively; P > 0.999). ERCP failures were observed in one patient with a previous Billroth II anastomosis and two patients with unconventional anatomy of the esophagus and stomach. There was no statistically significant difference in postoperative complications between the PTPBD group and the ERCP group (P > 0.05). The length of hospital stays did not differ between the PTPBD group and the ERCP group (P = 0.537 > 0.05).
conclusionPTPBD can be used in patients who have complicated anatomical issues that make the ERCP procedure difficult. In comparison, PTPBD is a similarly safe, effective, and minimally invasive technique for extracting CBD stones in elderly patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38796626What 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.