Small sphincterotomy combined with endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation versus sphincterotomy

Advanced Search

BPG is committed to discovery and dissemination of knowledge

Home / Archive / Volume 15, Issue 34

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

All Articles published online

Item

Count

PDF

413

HTML

4722

Figures (1-1)

326

Tables (1-4)

204

Sum=5665

Sep 14, 2009 (publication date) through Nov 26, 2024

Times Cited of This Article

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

Brief Articles

World J Gastroenterol. Sep 14, 2009; 15(34): 4298-4304
Published online Sep 14, 2009. doi: 10.3748/wjg.15.4298

Table 3 Comparison of overall application of mechanical lithotripsy according to the size of the stone in each group

	Group A (n = 27)		Group B (n = 28)
	< 2 cm (n = 14)	≥2 cm (n = 13)	< 2 cm (n = 15)	≥2 cm (n = 13)
Stone removal in the first session (%)	12 (85.7)^a	11 (84.6)^b	13 (86.6)^c	10 (76.9)^d
Mechanical lithotripsy (%)	2 (14.3)^e	7 (53.8)^f	2 (13.3)^g	7 (53.8)^h

Overall application of mechanical lithotripsy: 17/50 (34%). P value: a vs b, not significant; c vs d, not significant; e vs f, 0.018; g vs h, 0.008.

Citation: Kim HG, Cheon YK, Cho YD, Moon JH, Park DH, Lee TH, Choi HJ, Park SH, Lee JS, Lee MS. Small sphincterotomy combined with endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation versus sphincterotomy. World J Gastroenterol 2009; 15(34): 4298-4304
URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1007-9327/full/v15/i34/4298.htm
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3748/wjg.15.4298