Long-term follow-up after biliary stent placement for postcholecystectomy bile duct strictures: a multicenter study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Endoscopic stenting is a recognized treatment of postcholecystectomy biliary strictures. Large multicenter reports of its long-term efficacy are lacking. Our aim was to analyze the long-term outcomes after stenting in this patient population, based on a large experience from several centers in France. METHODS: Members of the French Society of Digestive Endoscopy were asked to identify patients treated for a common bile duct postcholecystectomy stricture. Patients with successful stenting and follow-up after removal of stent(s) were subsequently included and analyzed. Main outcome measures were long-term success of endoscopic stenting and related predictors for recurrence (after one stenting period) or failure (at the end of follow-up). RESULTS: A total of 96 patients were eligible for inclusion. The mean number of stents inserted at the same time was 1.9±0.89 (range 1-4). Stent-related morbidity was 22.9% (n=22). The median duration of stenting was 12 months (range 2-96 months). After a mean follow-up of 6.4±3.8 years (range 0-20.3 years) the overall success rate was 66.7% (n=64) after one period of stenting and 82.3% (n=79) after additional treatments. The mean time to recurrence was 19.7±36.6 months. The most significant independent predictor of both recurrence and failure was a pathological cholangiography at the time of stent removal. CONCLUSION: Endoscopic stenting helps to avoid surgery in more than 80% of patients bearing postcholecystectomy common bile duct strictures. However, a persistent anomaly on cholangiography at the time of stent removal is a strong predictor of recurrence and may lead to consideration of surgery.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".