<script type="text/javascript">
<!--
document.write('<div id="oa_widget"></div>');
document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="https://www.openaire.eu/index.php?option=com_openaire&view=widget&format=raw&projectId=undefined&type=result"></script>');
-->
</script>
pmid: 28762058
To compare the efficacy, safety, and surgical outcomes of laparoscopic common bile duct exploration, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, and open common bile duct exploration for treatment of common bile duct stones.In total, 210 patients were prospectively randomized into 3 groups: laparoscopic common bile duct exploration, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, and open common bile duct exploration. The primary outcome measures were the common bile duct stone clearance rate and the complication rate. The secondary outcome measures were mortality, total costs, and length of hospital stay.The success rates in the laparoscopic common bile duct exploration group (97.14%, 68 out of 70) and open common bile duct exploration group (98.57%, 69/70) were significantly higher than that in the endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography group (85.71%, 60/70, both p 0.05).Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration provides an alternative therapeutic approach that was safer and more reliable, allowed for earlier recovery, and provided more cost-effective treatment of common bile duct stones.
Cholangiopancreatography, Endoscopic Retrograde, Common Bile Duct, Male, Postoperative Complications, Treatment Outcome, Cholecystectomy, Laparoscopic, Humans, Female, Gallstones, Middle Aged
Cholangiopancreatography, Endoscopic Retrograde, Common Bile Duct, Male, Postoperative Complications, Treatment Outcome, Cholecystectomy, Laparoscopic, Humans, Female, Gallstones, Middle Aged
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). | 15 | |
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. | Top 10% | |
influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Top 10% | |
impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Average |