Electrohydraulic Lithotripsy in 111 Patients: A Safe and Effective Therapy for Difficult Bile Duct Stones
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Choledocholithiasis and intrahepatic bile duct stones pose a significant health hazard, especially in the elderly. The large stone not removable with conventional endoscopic techniques, can be effectively and safely managed with electrohydraulic lithotripsy (EHL). METHODS: This study is a retrospective review of consecutive patients at the Wellesley Central Hospital and St. Michael's Hospital, who underwent peroral endoscopic fragmentation of bile duct stones with EHL under direct cholangioscopic control using a "mother-baby" endoscopic system between October 1990 and March 2002. RESULTS: To date, 111 patients have been analyzed. Of the 111 patients reviewed, 94 patients have had complete records and were included in this study. Mean follow-up was 26.2 months (range 0-80). Prior to EHL, 93 of 94 patients (99%) had endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and failed standard stone extraction techniques (mean 1.9 ERCPs/patient, range 0-5). Indications for EHL were large stones (81 patients) or a narrow caliber bile duct below a stone of average size (13 patients). Successful fragmentation (61 complete, 28 partial) was achieved in 89 of 93 patients (96%) (1 patient was excluded from analysis due to a broken endoscope). Fragmentation failures were due to targeting problems (2 patients) and hard stones (2 patients). Seventy-six percent of patients required 1 EHL session, 14% required 2 sessions, and 10% required 3 or more. All patients with successful stone fragmentation required post-EHL balloon or basket extraction of fragments. Complications included: cholangitis and/or jaundice (13 patients); mild hemobilia (1 patient); mild post-ERCP pancreatitis (1 patient); biliary leak (1 patient); and bradycardia (1 patient). There were no deaths related to EHL. Final stone clearance was achieved in 85 of 94 patients (90%). CONCLUSIONS: EHL via peroral endoscopic choledochoscopy is a highly successful and safe technique for use in the management of difficult choledocholithiasis and intrahepatic stones. This study has shown a stone fragmentation rate of 96% (89 of 93 patients), and a final stone clearance rate of 90% (85 of 94 patients).
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".