ERCP findings provide further justification for a “surgery-first” mindset in choledocholithiasis
Introduction Choledocholithiasis is most often managed in a two-procedure pathway including endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) followed by laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). In contrast, a single-stage, surgery-first approach consisting of LC, cholangiogram, and laparoscopic commo...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Surgical endoscopy 2023-11, Vol.37 (11), p.8714-8719 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 8719 |
---|---|
container_issue | 11 |
container_start_page | 8714 |
container_title | Surgical endoscopy |
container_volume | 37 |
creator | Sanin, Gloria Cambronero, Gabriel Patterson, James Bosley, Maggie Ganapathy, Aravindh Wescott, Carl Neff, Lucas |
description | Introduction
Choledocholithiasis is most often managed in a two-procedure pathway including endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) followed by laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). In contrast, a single-stage, surgery-first approach consisting of LC, cholangiogram, and laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) is associated with reduced hospital stays and equivalent morbidity. Despite this, nationwide referral patterns heavily favor ERCP, obscuring those undergoing ERCP with obstructions amenable to simple intraoperative interventions. We hypothesized that most patients had endoscopic findings consistent with simple sludge or small-to-medium stones, which could have been cleared by basic LCBDE maneuvers.
Methods
We retrospectively reviewed 294 patients > 18 years old who underwent preoperative ERCP for the management of suspected choledocholithiasis. Exclusion criteria included: failed ERCP, cholangitis, prior cholecystectomy, patient refusal of surgery, or medical conditions precluding surgical candidacy. Stone size was categorized as small (0–4 mm), medium (5–7 mm), and large (≥ 8 mm).
Results
At the time of ERCP, 37 (20.1%) patients had sludge only, 96 (52.2%) had stones only, 42 (22.8%) had sludge and stones, and 9 (4.8%) had no stones. Of the 138 patients with any stones, 37 (26.8%) had small stones, 41 (29.7%) medium, 43 (31.2%) large, and 17 (12.3%) had uncharacterizable stones. Overall, 74.3% of patients had findings of sludge, stones (0–7 mm), or negative ERCP.
Conclusion
The majority of patients who underwent preoperative ERCP for suspected choledocholithiasis had findings that are amenable to simple intraoperative interventions. In fact, over a quarter of the patients had a negative ERCP, sludge, or small stones which would likely be cleared by flushing/glucagon precluding any further instrumentation. While large stones may require more advanced techniques, this represents a small percentage of patients. Surgery-first management for suspected choledocholithiasis can offer an efficient alternative for the majority of patients. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s00464-023-10329-x |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2844678941</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2844678941</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c375t-c14cb93b3bf659f3f9731ec69e792dadd86de5ccb7ed506802e77a85f9c67e033</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kU1uFDEQhS0EIpPABVggS2zYGMo_3W4v0ShApEggBGur2y5nPJrpDq5ulOxyELhcToLDBJBYsCpL9dWr53qMPZPwSgLY1wRgWiNAaSFBKyeuHrCVNFoJpWT3kK3AaRDKOnPEjom2UHknm8fsSNtG1We7YvH00_ojT3mMebwgflmmbzkiT0uZN1j4dqE5pxz6OU8jT1PhPb-9-U5LucByLVIuNN_e_OD7KkA48zzysJl2GKe7kudN7inTE_Yo9TvCp_f1hH15e_p5_V6cf3h3tn5zLkI1NIsgTRicHvSQ2sYlnZzVEkPr0DoV-xi7NmITwmAxNtB2oNDavmuSC61F0PqEvTzo1m98XZBmv88UcLfrR5wW8qozprWdM7KiL_5Bt9NSxuquUp0BqA6gUupAhTIRFUz-suR9X669BH-XgT9k4GsG_lcG_qoOPb-XXoY9xj8jv49eAX0AqLbGesi_u_8j-xMLZJWl</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2884006590</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>ERCP findings provide further justification for a “surgery-first” mindset in choledocholithiasis</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Springer Nature - Complete Springer Journals</source><creator>Sanin, Gloria ; Cambronero, Gabriel ; Patterson, James ; Bosley, Maggie ; Ganapathy, Aravindh ; Wescott, Carl ; Neff, Lucas</creator><creatorcontrib>Sanin, Gloria ; Cambronero, Gabriel ; Patterson, James ; Bosley, Maggie ; Ganapathy, Aravindh ; Wescott, Carl ; Neff, Lucas</creatorcontrib><description>Introduction
Choledocholithiasis is most often managed in a two-procedure pathway including endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) followed by laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). In contrast, a single-stage, surgery-first approach consisting of LC, cholangiogram, and laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) is associated with reduced hospital stays and equivalent morbidity. Despite this, nationwide referral patterns heavily favor ERCP, obscuring those undergoing ERCP with obstructions amenable to simple intraoperative interventions. We hypothesized that most patients had endoscopic findings consistent with simple sludge or small-to-medium stones, which could have been cleared by basic LCBDE maneuvers.
Methods
We retrospectively reviewed 294 patients > 18 years old who underwent preoperative ERCP for the management of suspected choledocholithiasis. Exclusion criteria included: failed ERCP, cholangitis, prior cholecystectomy, patient refusal of surgery, or medical conditions precluding surgical candidacy. Stone size was categorized as small (0–4 mm), medium (5–7 mm), and large (≥ 8 mm).
Results
At the time of ERCP, 37 (20.1%) patients had sludge only, 96 (52.2%) had stones only, 42 (22.8%) had sludge and stones, and 9 (4.8%) had no stones. Of the 138 patients with any stones, 37 (26.8%) had small stones, 41 (29.7%) medium, 43 (31.2%) large, and 17 (12.3%) had uncharacterizable stones. Overall, 74.3% of patients had findings of sludge, stones (0–7 mm), or negative ERCP.
Conclusion
The majority of patients who underwent preoperative ERCP for suspected choledocholithiasis had findings that are amenable to simple intraoperative interventions. In fact, over a quarter of the patients had a negative ERCP, sludge, or small stones which would likely be cleared by flushing/glucagon precluding any further instrumentation. While large stones may require more advanced techniques, this represents a small percentage of patients. Surgery-first management for suspected choledocholithiasis can offer an efficient alternative for the majority of patients.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0930-2794</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1432-2218</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s00464-023-10329-x</identifier><identifier>PMID: 37524916</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York: Springer US</publisher><subject>2023 SAGES Oral ; Abdominal Surgery ; Adolescent ; Cholangiography - methods ; Cholangiopancreatography, Endoscopic Retrograde - methods ; Cholecystectomy ; Cholecystectomy, Laparoscopic - methods ; Choledocholithiasis - diagnostic imaging ; Choledocholithiasis - surgery ; Endoscopy ; Gastroenterology ; Gynecology ; Hepatology ; Humans ; Laparoscopy ; Medicine ; Medicine & Public Health ; Proctology ; Retrospective Studies ; Sewage ; Sludge ; Surgery</subject><ispartof>Surgical endoscopy, 2023-11, Vol.37 (11), p.8714-8719</ispartof><rights>The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2023. Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.</rights><rights>2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c375t-c14cb93b3bf659f3f9731ec69e792dadd86de5ccb7ed506802e77a85f9c67e033</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c375t-c14cb93b3bf659f3f9731ec69e792dadd86de5ccb7ed506802e77a85f9c67e033</cites><orcidid>0000-0003-0435-1601</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00464-023-10329-x$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00464-023-10329-x$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27903,27904,41467,42536,51297</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37524916$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Sanin, Gloria</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cambronero, Gabriel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Patterson, James</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bosley, Maggie</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ganapathy, Aravindh</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wescott, Carl</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Neff, Lucas</creatorcontrib><title>ERCP findings provide further justification for a “surgery-first” mindset in choledocholithiasis</title><title>Surgical endoscopy</title><addtitle>Surg Endosc</addtitle><addtitle>Surg Endosc</addtitle><description>Introduction
Choledocholithiasis is most often managed in a two-procedure pathway including endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) followed by laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). In contrast, a single-stage, surgery-first approach consisting of LC, cholangiogram, and laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) is associated with reduced hospital stays and equivalent morbidity. Despite this, nationwide referral patterns heavily favor ERCP, obscuring those undergoing ERCP with obstructions amenable to simple intraoperative interventions. We hypothesized that most patients had endoscopic findings consistent with simple sludge or small-to-medium stones, which could have been cleared by basic LCBDE maneuvers.
Methods
We retrospectively reviewed 294 patients > 18 years old who underwent preoperative ERCP for the management of suspected choledocholithiasis. Exclusion criteria included: failed ERCP, cholangitis, prior cholecystectomy, patient refusal of surgery, or medical conditions precluding surgical candidacy. Stone size was categorized as small (0–4 mm), medium (5–7 mm), and large (≥ 8 mm).
Results
At the time of ERCP, 37 (20.1%) patients had sludge only, 96 (52.2%) had stones only, 42 (22.8%) had sludge and stones, and 9 (4.8%) had no stones. Of the 138 patients with any stones, 37 (26.8%) had small stones, 41 (29.7%) medium, 43 (31.2%) large, and 17 (12.3%) had uncharacterizable stones. Overall, 74.3% of patients had findings of sludge, stones (0–7 mm), or negative ERCP.
Conclusion
The majority of patients who underwent preoperative ERCP for suspected choledocholithiasis had findings that are amenable to simple intraoperative interventions. In fact, over a quarter of the patients had a negative ERCP, sludge, or small stones which would likely be cleared by flushing/glucagon precluding any further instrumentation. While large stones may require more advanced techniques, this represents a small percentage of patients. Surgery-first management for suspected choledocholithiasis can offer an efficient alternative for the majority of patients.</description><subject>2023 SAGES Oral</subject><subject>Abdominal Surgery</subject><subject>Adolescent</subject><subject>Cholangiography - methods</subject><subject>Cholangiopancreatography, Endoscopic Retrograde - methods</subject><subject>Cholecystectomy</subject><subject>Cholecystectomy, Laparoscopic - methods</subject><subject>Choledocholithiasis - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Choledocholithiasis - surgery</subject><subject>Endoscopy</subject><subject>Gastroenterology</subject><subject>Gynecology</subject><subject>Hepatology</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Laparoscopy</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine & Public Health</subject><subject>Proctology</subject><subject>Retrospective Studies</subject><subject>Sewage</subject><subject>Sludge</subject><subject>Surgery</subject><issn>0930-2794</issn><issn>1432-2218</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2023</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kU1uFDEQhS0EIpPABVggS2zYGMo_3W4v0ShApEggBGur2y5nPJrpDq5ulOxyELhcToLDBJBYsCpL9dWr53qMPZPwSgLY1wRgWiNAaSFBKyeuHrCVNFoJpWT3kK3AaRDKOnPEjom2UHknm8fsSNtG1We7YvH00_ojT3mMebwgflmmbzkiT0uZN1j4dqE5pxz6OU8jT1PhPb-9-U5LucByLVIuNN_e_OD7KkA48zzysJl2GKe7kudN7inTE_Yo9TvCp_f1hH15e_p5_V6cf3h3tn5zLkI1NIsgTRicHvSQ2sYlnZzVEkPr0DoV-xi7NmITwmAxNtB2oNDavmuSC61F0PqEvTzo1m98XZBmv88UcLfrR5wW8qozprWdM7KiL_5Bt9NSxuquUp0BqA6gUupAhTIRFUz-suR9X669BH-XgT9k4GsG_lcG_qoOPb-XXoY9xj8jv49eAX0AqLbGesi_u_8j-xMLZJWl</recordid><startdate>20231101</startdate><enddate>20231101</enddate><creator>Sanin, Gloria</creator><creator>Cambronero, Gabriel</creator><creator>Patterson, James</creator><creator>Bosley, Maggie</creator><creator>Ganapathy, Aravindh</creator><creator>Wescott, Carl</creator><creator>Neff, Lucas</creator><general>Springer US</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0435-1601</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20231101</creationdate><title>ERCP findings provide further justification for a “surgery-first” mindset in choledocholithiasis</title><author>Sanin, Gloria ; Cambronero, Gabriel ; Patterson, James ; Bosley, Maggie ; Ganapathy, Aravindh ; Wescott, Carl ; Neff, Lucas</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c375t-c14cb93b3bf659f3f9731ec69e792dadd86de5ccb7ed506802e77a85f9c67e033</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2023</creationdate><topic>2023 SAGES Oral</topic><topic>Abdominal Surgery</topic><topic>Adolescent</topic><topic>Cholangiography - methods</topic><topic>Cholangiopancreatography, Endoscopic Retrograde - methods</topic><topic>Cholecystectomy</topic><topic>Cholecystectomy, Laparoscopic - methods</topic><topic>Choledocholithiasis - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Choledocholithiasis - surgery</topic><topic>Endoscopy</topic><topic>Gastroenterology</topic><topic>Gynecology</topic><topic>Hepatology</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Laparoscopy</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine & Public Health</topic><topic>Proctology</topic><topic>Retrospective Studies</topic><topic>Sewage</topic><topic>Sludge</topic><topic>Surgery</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Sanin, Gloria</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cambronero, Gabriel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Patterson, James</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bosley, Maggie</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ganapathy, Aravindh</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wescott, Carl</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Neff, Lucas</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Surgical endoscopy</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Sanin, Gloria</au><au>Cambronero, Gabriel</au><au>Patterson, James</au><au>Bosley, Maggie</au><au>Ganapathy, Aravindh</au><au>Wescott, Carl</au><au>Neff, Lucas</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>ERCP findings provide further justification for a “surgery-first” mindset in choledocholithiasis</atitle><jtitle>Surgical endoscopy</jtitle><stitle>Surg Endosc</stitle><addtitle>Surg Endosc</addtitle><date>2023-11-01</date><risdate>2023</risdate><volume>37</volume><issue>11</issue><spage>8714</spage><epage>8719</epage><pages>8714-8719</pages><issn>0930-2794</issn><eissn>1432-2218</eissn><abstract>Introduction
Choledocholithiasis is most often managed in a two-procedure pathway including endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) followed by laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). In contrast, a single-stage, surgery-first approach consisting of LC, cholangiogram, and laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) is associated with reduced hospital stays and equivalent morbidity. Despite this, nationwide referral patterns heavily favor ERCP, obscuring those undergoing ERCP with obstructions amenable to simple intraoperative interventions. We hypothesized that most patients had endoscopic findings consistent with simple sludge or small-to-medium stones, which could have been cleared by basic LCBDE maneuvers.
Methods
We retrospectively reviewed 294 patients > 18 years old who underwent preoperative ERCP for the management of suspected choledocholithiasis. Exclusion criteria included: failed ERCP, cholangitis, prior cholecystectomy, patient refusal of surgery, or medical conditions precluding surgical candidacy. Stone size was categorized as small (0–4 mm), medium (5–7 mm), and large (≥ 8 mm).
Results
At the time of ERCP, 37 (20.1%) patients had sludge only, 96 (52.2%) had stones only, 42 (22.8%) had sludge and stones, and 9 (4.8%) had no stones. Of the 138 patients with any stones, 37 (26.8%) had small stones, 41 (29.7%) medium, 43 (31.2%) large, and 17 (12.3%) had uncharacterizable stones. Overall, 74.3% of patients had findings of sludge, stones (0–7 mm), or negative ERCP.
Conclusion
The majority of patients who underwent preoperative ERCP for suspected choledocholithiasis had findings that are amenable to simple intraoperative interventions. In fact, over a quarter of the patients had a negative ERCP, sludge, or small stones which would likely be cleared by flushing/glucagon precluding any further instrumentation. While large stones may require more advanced techniques, this represents a small percentage of patients. Surgery-first management for suspected choledocholithiasis can offer an efficient alternative for the majority of patients.</abstract><cop>New York</cop><pub>Springer US</pub><pmid>37524916</pmid><doi>10.1007/s00464-023-10329-x</doi><tpages>6</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0435-1601</orcidid></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0930-2794 |
ispartof | Surgical endoscopy, 2023-11, Vol.37 (11), p.8714-8719 |
issn | 0930-2794 1432-2218 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2844678941 |
source | MEDLINE; Springer Nature - Complete Springer Journals |
subjects | 2023 SAGES Oral Abdominal Surgery Adolescent Cholangiography - methods Cholangiopancreatography, Endoscopic Retrograde - methods Cholecystectomy Cholecystectomy, Laparoscopic - methods Choledocholithiasis - diagnostic imaging Choledocholithiasis - surgery Endoscopy Gastroenterology Gynecology Hepatology Humans Laparoscopy Medicine Medicine & Public Health Proctology Retrospective Studies Sewage Sludge Surgery |
title | ERCP findings provide further justification for a “surgery-first” mindset in choledocholithiasis |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-25T14%3A57%3A44IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=ERCP%20findings%20provide%20further%20justification%20for%20a%20%E2%80%9Csurgery-first%E2%80%9D%20mindset%20in%20choledocholithiasis&rft.jtitle=Surgical%20endoscopy&rft.au=Sanin,%20Gloria&rft.date=2023-11-01&rft.volume=37&rft.issue=11&rft.spage=8714&rft.epage=8719&rft.pages=8714-8719&rft.issn=0930-2794&rft.eissn=1432-2218&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s00464-023-10329-x&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2844678941%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2884006590&rft_id=info:pmid/37524916&rfr_iscdi=true |