This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Citing articles on Web of Science (30)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

S. AUSTIN JONES, MD; LOUIS L. SMITH, MD; THOMAS B. KELLER, MD; EUGENE J. JOERGENSON, MD

AMA Arch Surg. 1963;86(6):1014-1032.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

A review of the literature indicates that, despite the most careful surgical exploration and operative cholangiography, a significant number of retained or re-formed common duct stones are demonstrated by postoperative x-ray studies, symptomatology, and subsequent surgery. The purpose of this paper is to discuss the reduction of this number by the use of prophylactic transduodenal choledochoduodenostomy (sphincteroplasty) (TCD). The term residual stones will include both retained and re-formed stones.

The Incidence of Residual Stones

Best⁸ has stated that no matter how carefully a duct is explored, stones will be missed in some cases. A representative group of reports on residual stones is presented in Table 1.

More exhaustive surveys of the literature by Glenn,²³ Johnston,³² and Smith⁵⁵ reported a range in incidence from 2% to 28%. In Johnston's series, there was an additional number of clinically suspected but not proved residual stones. In Colcock's personal series . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

Author Affiliations
LOS ANGELES

From the Department of Surgery, Loma Linda University, School of Medicine.

Footnotes
Presented at the 70th Annual Session of the Western Surgical Association, St. Louis, Nov 29-Dec 1, 1962.

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?