Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
https://doi.org/10.1...arrow_drop_down
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-...
Part of book or chapter of book . 1984 . Peer-reviewed
Data sources: Crossref
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-...
Part of book or chapter of book . 1994 . Peer-reviewed
Data sources: Crossref
versions View all 2 versions
addClaim

This Research product is the result of merged Research products in OpenAIRE.

You have already added 0 works in your ORCID record related to the merged Research product.

Common Bile Duct Exploration

Authors: Jameson L. Chassin;

Common Bile Duct Exploration

Abstract

As pointed out by Way, Admirand, and Dunphy, the true incidence of CBD stones in patients undergoing surgery for gallstones is probably between 12% and 15% in the United States. By using indications essentially identical to those stated below and by performing routine preexploratory cystic duct cholangiography, Way performed CBD explorations in only 21% of 952 cholecystectomies. These explorations were positive for calculi in 65% of the patients explored. Of the 952 cholecystectomy cases, 14% had CBD stones. In 6 additional reports collected by Way in which routine cystic duct cholangiography was employed, the results were similar. On the other hand, the same author cited 3 other reports from the Lahey Clinic of cases in which preexploratory cholangiography was not performed. Here, of 33% of patients undergoing CBD exploration only 30% of the ducts contained stones. Whereas the use of routine cystic duct cholangiograms resulted in the recovery of CBD stones in over 14% of the cholecystectomies reported by Way and colleagues, the authors who omitted preexploratory cholangiography were able to discover CBD stones in only 10% of their cholecystectomy cases. In other words, routine preexploratory cholangiography markedly reduces the number of CBD explorations performed yet achieves a higher recovery rate of CBD stones (see Table 50-1).

Related Organizations
  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    citations
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    1
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Average
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
citations
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
1
Average
Average
Average
Upload OA version
Are you the author? Do you have the OA version of this publication?