ArticleCureus2024
A Comparative Study of Choledochoduodenostomy Versus Open Choledochotomy With T Tube Placement in a Hospital Lacking Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCholedocholithiasis, or stones in the common bile duct (CBD), has two types: primary stones that form in the CBD and secondary stones that migrate from the gallbladder. Management includes endoscopic, laparoscopic, and open surgical methods. In India, the availability of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and laparoscopic surgery is limited often necessitating open procedures. Commonly, open choledochotomy followed by T tube placement was performed. However, postoperative management/management of retained stones can be challenging, requiring referrals for ERCP or revision surgery. This study aims to compare the outcomes of choledochoduodenostomy versus the T tube approach in a hospital setup where ERCP is either unavailable or cumbersome. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis was a retrospective comparative study carried out at Rajendra Institute of Medical Sciences (RIMS), Ranchi, Jharkhand, India. The study was approved by the Institutional Ethics Committee of RIMS, Ranchi. A total of 62 patients who underwent operations for choledocholithiasis (CBD dilation ≥ 1.2 cm) from January 2023 to January 2024 in the Department of General Surgery of RIMS, Ranchi, were analyzed.
resultsThe mean age group was 52 years ± 11.5 years, and two-thirds were females with a male-to-female ratio of 1:1.8. The most common presentation was biliary colic (87 %), followed by jaundice (45%). Around three-fourths of them had multiple calculi (n = 46). A total of 36 patients underwent T tube (58.1%) and 26 underwent choledochodudoenostomy (41.9 %). The mean operating time was higher for the T tube approach but not statistically significant. The hospital stay for the patients was significantly higher for the T tube approach with a p-value of <0.001. The mean T tube in situ duration was 17.60 days ± 1.2 days. On performing a T tube cholangiogram postoperatively, it was observed around one-fourth of them had T tube filling defect (n = 8), signifying the residual stone presence and referral to higher center due to unavailability of ERCP. The incidence of wound infection was significantly high among the patient who underwent T tube with a p-value of 0.017, and postoperative bile leak was significantly high among the patient who underwent T tube with a p-value of 0.047.
conclusionBased on our retrospective analysis, we suggest choledochoduodenostomy was safer and more efficient in aspects of lesser operating time, minimal hospital stay, less or nil retained stones, lesser postoperative wound infection, bile leakage, and possessing advantages especially to elderly patients both economically and psychologically.
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.