Trial reportClinical and experimental medicine2025
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.
Trial report in Clinical and experimental medicine, 2025. 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.
- Association between completion status and perioperative outcomes of laparoscopic cholecystectomy in elderly patients.BMC surgery · 2026Article
- Conversion of endoscopic nasobiliary drainage into internal drainage versus endoscopic biliary stenting for benign biliary obstruction: a retrospective propensity score-matched comparative study.Therapeutic advances in gastroenterology · 2026Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionElderly patients with common bile duct (CBD) stones often present with large or multiple stones, making endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP)-guided extraction a technically complex and potentially high-risk procedure.
aimThis study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of a staged approach-biliary stenting followed by delayed stone extraction-versus immediate stone removal during the initial ERCP in frail elderly patients with large or multiple CBD stones.
methodsThis prospective study included high-risk elderly patients with large or multiple CBD stones, defined as either a single stone ≥ 15 mm in diameter or three or more stones, each ≥ 10 mm in diameter. Participants were randomly assigned to two equal groups: Group A underwent initial biliary stenting with elective stone retrieval after 8-12 weeks, while Group B underwent immediate stone extraction during the first ERCP.
resultsA total of 400 patients were included, with 200 in each group. Baseline characteristics and stone extraction methodologies were comparable between the two groups. In Group A, stone size and number significantly decreased after stenting (mean size: 1.42 ± 0.28 cm before vs. 0.98 ± 0.19 cm after stenting; P < 0.001). The overall stone clearance rate was significantly higher in Group A compared to Group B (94% vs. 80%, P < 0.001). Post-ERCP hospital stay was significantly shorter in Group A (6.41 ± 1.27 days vs. 11.3 ± 1.86 days, P < 0.001). Group B had higher rates of complications, including cholangitis (1% vs. 7%, P < 0.05) and pneumonia (2% vs. 11%, P < 0.05).
conclusionIn high-risk elderly patients with large or multiple CBD stones, temporary placement of biliary plastic stents followed by elective endoscopic stone removal effectively reduces stone size, simplifies the removal process, enhances stone clearance rates, and decreases ERCP-related complications.
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.