Should we redefine large common bile duct stone?

doi:10.3748/wjg.14.651

Advanced Search

BPG is committed to discovery and dissemination of knowledge

Home / Archive / Volume 14, Issue 4

This Article

Citation of this article

Corresponding Author of This Article

Article-Type of This Article

Open-Access Policy of This Article

Times Cited Counts in Google of This Article

Number of Hits and Downloads for This Article

Total Article Views (3173)

All Articles published online

The chart showing PDF series, HTML series, Figures (1-1) series, Tables (1-1) series.

Item

Count

PDF

322

HTML

2411

Figures (1-1)

266

Tables (1-1)

174

Sum=3173

Jan 28, 2008 (publication date) through Jan 4, 2025

Times Cited of This Article

Times Cited (13)

Journal Information of This Article

Publication Name

World Journal of Gastroenterology

ISSN

1007-9327

Publisher of This Article

Baishideng Publishing Group Inc, 7041 Koll Center Parkway, Suite 160, Pleasanton, CA 94566, USA

Letters To The Editor

World J Gastroenterol. Jan 28, 2008; 14(4): 651-652
Published online Jan 28, 2008. doi: 10.3748/wjg.14.651

Full Size Figure Download Figure

Figure 1 Cholangiogram showing a 8 mm common bile duct (CBD) calculus and a 4 mm lower CBD diameter and intrahepatic biliary radical dilation (A), and a 9mm CBD calculus and a 3 mm lower CBD diameter and intrahepatic biliary radicals dilation (B).

Citation: Sharma SS, Jain P. Should we redefine large common bile duct stone? World J Gastroenterol 2008; 14(4): 651-652
URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1007-9327/full/v14/i4/651.htm
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3748/wjg.14.651