MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2300014998 · doi:10.1055/s-0042-103928

High resolution cholangioscopic electrohydraulic lithotripsy for fragmentation and extraction of impacted cystic duct stones

2016· article· en· W2300014998 on OpenAlexaff
Nauzer Forbes, Takuya Ishikawa, Rachid Mohamed

Bibliographic record

VenueEndoscopy · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPediatric Hepatobiliary Diseases and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCystic ductEndoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatographyGallstonesLithotripsyGallbladderSurgeryCholecystectomyCommon bile ductStentJaundiceBile ductAbdominal painRadiologyPancreatitis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A 29-year-old woman presented with right-sided abdominal pain and jaundice. The patient was postpartum but otherwise healthy. Her total bilirubin level was 74 µmol/L. Abdominal ultrasound revealed a 9-mm dilated proximal common bile duct (CBD), a suspected CBD stone and a distended gallbladder with gallstones. The patient underwent endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP); however, no obvious filling defects were seen in the CBD. A convex filling defect was seen protruding from the cystic duct confluence, with proximal dilatation and an absence of gallbladder filling ([ Fig. 1 ]). Sphincterotomy was performed, and but the stones could not be extracted by means of balloon sweeps. A plastic biliary stent was placed and the patient underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Intraoperative choledochoscopy revealed an impacted stone at the cystic duct confluence. Despite attempts to extract the stone with three wire baskets and two Fogarty catheters, the stone could not be removed. Fig. 1 A 29-year-old postpartum woman presented with right-sided abdominal pain and jaundice: fluoroscopic image from initial endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), showing a filling defect at the level of the cystic duct, representing an impacted cystic duct stone. Repeat ERCP with high resolution single-operator peroral cholangioscopy (SpyGlass DS system; Boston Scientific, Marlborough, Massachusetts, USA) [ 1 ] was performed ([ Video 1 ]). Cholangiography revealed a filling defect at the cystic duct level. A balloon occlusion cholangiogram revealed absence of cystic duct filling ([ Fig. 2 ]). The SpyGlass DS system was then maneuvered into the CBD under fluoroscopy, and high resolution cholangioscopy was performed. An 8-mm stone impacted in the cystic duct was visualized ([ Fig. 3 a ]). An electrohydraulic lithotripsy (EHL) probe was used to fragment the stone ([ Fig. 3 b ]). The SpyGlass system was removed from the CBD, and a balloon was used to successfully extract the fragments from the cystic duct and CBD ([ Fig. 4 ]). Quality: mobile 360 480 720 Download In a 29-year-old postpartum woman, presenting with right-sided abdominal pain and jaundice, high resolution cholangioscopy shows the impacted cystic duct stone and fragmentation of the stone by electrohydraulic lithotripsy probe. An endoscopic view of balloon extraction of the stone fragments is shown. Fig. 2 Fluoroscopic image from repeat ERCP, showing absence of cystic duct filling with balloon occlusion cholangiogram. Fig. 3 High resolution cholangioscopic images acquired using the SpyGlass DS system, showing: a an impacted stone at the cystic duct confluence; b fragmentation of the impacted cystic duct stone by means of an electrohydraulic lithotripsy (EHL) probe. Fig. 4 Endoscopic image showing balloon extraction of the fragments of the previously impacted cystic duct stone from the common bile duct after electrohydraulic lithotripsy. EHL has previously been paired with multioperator and low resolution cholangioscopy for fragmentation of CBD, cystic duct, and gallbladder stones [ 2 ] [ 3 ] [ 4 ] [ 5 ]. Here we present the first report of a safe, single-operator procedure for high resolution identification and fragmentation of cystic duct stones, which can potentially spare patients invasive, technically difficult, and costly re-operations. Endoscopy_UCTN_Code_TTT_1AR_2AH

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.296 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEndoscopySame topicPediatric Hepatobiliary Diseases and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207