| Title |
Effectiveness of peroral direct cholangioscopy using an ultraslim endoscope for the treatment of hepatolithiasis in patients with hepaticojejunostomy (with video)
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Surgical Endoscopy, June 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00464-015-4323-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Kazuyuki Matsumoto, Koichiro Tsutsumi, Hironari Kato, Yutaka Akimoto, Daisuke Uchida, Takeshi Tomoda, Naoki Yamamoto, Yasuhiro Noma, Shigeru Horiguchi, Hiroyuki Okada, Kazuhide Yamamoto |
| Abstract |
Hepatolithiasis is a postoperative complication of hepaticojejunostomy (HJ) performed for various pancreatobiliary diseases. Hepatolithiasis can cause repeated cholangitis. Complete stone removal and bile stasis elimination are therefore necessary. Here, we evaluated the effectiveness of peroral direct cholangioscopy (PDCS) using an ultraslim endoscope for treating hepatolithiasis in HJ patients. We studied 14 patients with hepatolithiasis who underwent bowel reconstruction with HJ between April 2012 and May 2014. Diagnostic and therapeutic endoscopic retrograde cholangiography using a short double-balloon enteroscope (DBE) was initially performed. Following stone removal, the DBE was exchanged for an ultraslim endoscope through the balloon overtube for PDCS. The success rate of PDCS procedure was 85.7 % (12/14). In 5 of 12 (41.7 %) patients with successful PDCS, the residual stones were detected and removed completely using a 5-Fr basket catheter and suction after normal saline irrigation. In the remaining 7 (58.3 %) patients, no residual stone was detected. The median procedure time was 14 min (range 8-36) with no serious postoperative complications. The median follow-up time after PDCS was 21 months (range 5-26), and only 1 patient (8.3 %) had IHBD stone recurrence with an anastomotic stricture. PDCS using an ultraslim endoscope appears to be useful for detecting and removing residual stones following hepatolithiasis treatment using a DBE. The combined use of a DBE and PDCS may reduce the risk of hepatolithiasis recurrence in HJ patients. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 20 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 20 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 4 | 20% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 10% |
| Researcher | 2 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 2 | 10% |
| Unknown | 7 | 35% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 6 | 30% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 20% |
| Sports and Recreations | 1 | 5% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 8 | 40% |
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 18 February 2016.
All research outputs
#20,308,732
of 22,849,304 outputs
Outputs from Surgical Endoscopy
#5,654
of 6,040 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#219,412
of 263,220 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Surgical Endoscopy
#108
of 124 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,849,304 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,040 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 263,220 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 124 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.