Cholecystectomy following endoscopic clearance of common bile duct during the same admission
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The recurrence of common bile duct stones and other biliary events after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is frequent. Despite recommendations for early cholecystectomy, intervention during the same admission is carried out inconsistently. METHODS: We reviewed the records of patients who underwent ERCP for gallstone disease and common bile duct clearance followed by cholecystectomy between July 2012 and June 2022. Patients were divided into 2 groups: the index group underwent cholecystectomy during the same admission and the delayed group was discharged and had their cholecystectomy postponed. Data on demographics and prognosis factors were collected and analyzed. RESULTS: The study population was composed of 268 patients, with 71 (26.6%) having undergone cholecystectomy during the same admission after common bile duct clearance with ERCP. A greater proportion of patients aged 80 years and older were in the index group than in the delayed group. The American Society of Anesthesiologists score was significantly higher in the index group. There was no significant difference between groups regarding surgical complications, open cholecystectomy and death. The operative time was significantly longer in the delayed group. Among patients with delayed cholecystectomy, 18.3% had at least 1 recurrence of common bile duct stones (CBDS) and 38.6% had recurrence of any gallstone-related events before cholecystectomy. None of these events occurred in the the index group. There was no difference in the recurrence of CBDS and other biliary events after initial diagnosis associated with stone disease. CONCLUSION: Cholecystectomy during the same admission after common bile duct clearance is safe, even in older adults with comorbidities. Compared with delayed cholecystectomy, it was not associated with adverse outcomes and may have prevented recurrence of biliary events.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".