BPG is committed to discovery and dissemination of knowledge
Retrospective Study
Copyright: ©Author(s) 2026.
World J Gastrointest Endosc. May 16, 2026; 18(5): 118389
Published online May 16, 2026. doi: 10.4253/wjge.v18.i5.118389
Figure 1
Figure 1 Study flow chart. ERCP: Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography; CBD: Common bile duct.
Figure 2
Figure 2 Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography and endoscopic retrograde cholangiography predictors of incomplete common bile duct stone clearance. A-H: Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography imaging of various predictors of incomplete common bile duct (CBD) stone clearance in A-D. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiographic images of various predictors of incomplete CBD stone clearance in E-H. Stone size greater than CBD diameter (A); proximal location of stone (B and C); impacted stone (D); stone size greater than CBD diameter (E); proximal location of stone (F and G); impacted stone (H).
Figure 3
Figure 3 Receiver operating characteristic curves of the predictors of incomplete common bile duct stone clearance. A: Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography-based predictors: Stone size [area under curve (AUC) = 0.635], stone size-to-common bile duct (CBD) diameter ratio (AUC = 0.618), stone size ≥ 12 mm (AUC = 0.595), and CBD diameter (AUC = 0.577); B: Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography-based predictors: Stone size (AUC = 0.750), stone size-to-CBD diameter ratio (AUC = 0.709), proximal stone location (AUC = 0.688), impacted stones (AUC = 0.673), stricture (AUC = 0.581), and CBD diameter (AUC = 0.571). CBD: Common bile duct.


Write to the Help Desk