↓ Skip to main content

Comparison of the usefulness of endoscopic papillary large-balloon dilation with endoscopic sphincterotomy for large and multiple common bile duct stones

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Gastroenterology, May 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
14 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Comparison of the usefulness of endoscopic papillary large-balloon dilation with endoscopic sphincterotomy for large and multiple common bile duct stones
Published in
BMC Gastroenterology, May 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12876-015-0290-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kouhei Tsuchida, Mari Iwasaki, Misako Tsubouchi, Tsunehiro Suzuki, Chieko Tsuchida, Naoto Yoshitake, Takako Sasai, Hideyuki Hiraishi

Abstract

Endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) is currently recognized as the primary endoscopic treatment for common bile duct stones. However, it is difficult to remove multiple (≥3) or large (≥15 mm) common bile duct stones with EST alone. Recently, EST plus endoscopic papillary large-balloon dilation (EPLBD) was reported to be an effective treatment for such bile duct stones. We compared the results of EST and EST + EPLBD for multiple (≥3) or large (≥15 mm) stones that were difficult to treat using EST alone. We also compared the complication rates between the techniques. Seventy patients with large (largest diameter, ≥15 mm) or ≥ 3 common bile duct stones treated in our department between April 2010 and March 2013 underwent EST + EPLBD (n = 34) or EST alone (n = 36). We compared final successful stone removal rates, rates of successful stone removal in the first session, procedure times, status of concurrent mechanical lithotripsy (ML), and complications between the EST + EPLBD and EST groups. The rates of final successful stone removal were similar between the two groups (EST + EPLBD: 100 % vs. EST: 89 %; p = 0.115). The rate of successful stone removal in the first session was significantly higher in the EST + EPLBD group (EST + EPLBD: 88 % vs. EST: 56 %; p = 0.03). Moreover, the procedure time was significantly shorter (EST + EPLBD: 42 min vs. EST: 67 min; p = 0.011) and the rate of ML use was significantly lower in the EST + EPLBD group (EST + EPLBD: 50 % vs. EST: 94 %; p < 0.001). Complications like pancreatitis and bleeding occurred in three patients in the EST + EPLBD group and in 10 patients in the EST group, but the differences were not statistically significant (EST + EPLBD: 9 % vs. EST: 25 %; p = 0.112). Our results suggest that EST + EPLBD is an effective therapy for patients with difficult-to-treat multiple or large common bile duct stones, because it requires fewer sessions and shorter operative times than EST alone.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 14 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 14 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 3 21%
Other 2 14%
Lecturer 2 14%
Student > Bachelor 1 7%
Librarian 1 7%
Other 2 14%
Unknown 3 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 57%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 7%
Unknown 5 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 May 2015.
All research outputs
#15,331,767
of 22,803,211 outputs
Outputs from BMC Gastroenterology
#830
of 1,744 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#156,680
of 265,295 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Gastroenterology
#18
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,803,211 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,744 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.0. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 265,295 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.