[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"health-studies-list:{\"conditionNormalized\":\"cholelithiasis\",\"overallStatus\":[\"RECRUITING\",\"AVAILABLE\",\"NOT_YET_RECRUITING\"],\"orderBy\":\"LastUpdateSubmitDate:desc\",\"size\":25,\"offset\":0}":3,"health-study-condition:cholelithiasis":28},{"pageToken":4,"total":5,"offset":6,"count":5,"results":7},null,18,0,[8,46,80,110,140,167,193,220,253,278,303,328,352,377,406,430,448,472],{"id":9,"slug":10,"hasResults":11,"nctId":12,"briefTitle":13,"officialTitle":14,"acronym":15,"eligibilityCriteria":16,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":17,"minAge":18,"maxAge":19,"enrollmentInfo":20,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":23,"phases":24,"briefSummary":26,"conditions":27,"keywords":30,"overallStatus":33,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":34,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":35,"startDateStruct":38,"completionDateStruct":40,"leadSponsor":42,"locationsCount":45},"100644830","rectointercostal-plane-block-ricpb-for-laparoscopic-cholecystectomy-100644830",false,"NCT07676552","Rectointercostal Plane Block (RICPB) for Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy","Rectointercostal Plane Block (RICPB) for Postoperative Analgesia After Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: A Randomized Controlled Trial","RICPB","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Age between 18 and 65 years\n* American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status I-III\n* Scheduled for elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy\n* Body mass index (BMI) between 18 and 35 kg\u002Fm²\n* Ability to understand the study procedures and provide written informed consent\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Refusal to participate or inability to provide informed consent\n* Known allergy or hypersensitivity to local anesthetics, opioids, or study medications\n* Chronic opioid use or chronic pain syndrome\n* Coagulation disorders or ongoing anticoagulant therapy\n* Infection at the planned injection site\n* Pregnancy or breastfeeding\n* Cognitive impairment or inability to communicate pain scores\n* Severe hepatic, renal, cardiac, or respiratory disease judged by the investigator to interfere with study participation\n* Conversion from laparoscopic to open surgery\n* Previous upper abdominal surgery that may interfere with the block technique or pain assessment","ALL","18 Years","65 Years",{"count":21,"type":22},60,"ESTIMATED","INTERVENTIONAL",[25],"NA","This prospective randomized controlled trial is designed to evaluate the analgesic efficacy of ultrasound-guided rectointercostal plane block (RICPB) in patients undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Patients will be randomized to receive unilateral right-sided RICPB at the end of surgery. Postoperative opioid consumption, Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) pain scores, and postoperative complications will be assessed to determine the effectiveness of RICPB in postoperative pain management.",[28,29],"Cholelithiasis","Postoperative Pain",[31,32,15],"Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy","Rectointercostal Plane Block","NOT_YET_RECRUITING","2026-06-30",{"date":36,"type":37},"2026-07-02","ACTUAL",{"date":39,"type":22},"2026-07-01",{"date":41,"type":22},"2027-02-01",{"name":43,"class":44},"Koç University","OTHER",1,{"id":47,"slug":48,"hasResults":11,"nctId":49,"briefTitle":50,"officialTitle":51,"acronym":52,"eligibilityCriteria":53,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":17,"minAge":18,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":54,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":23,"phases":56,"briefSummary":57,"conditions":58,"keywords":66,"overallStatus":33,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":72,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":73,"startDateStruct":75,"completionDateStruct":76,"leadSponsor":78,"locationsCount":4},"100641844","eus-guided-gallbladder-drainage-versus-conservative-management-in-patients-unfit-for-surgery-after-a-biliary-event-without-cholecystitis-drecon-study-100641844","NCT07655778","EUS-Guided Gallbladder Drainage Versus Conservative Management in Patients Unfit for Surgery After a Biliary Event Without Cholecystitis. DRECON Study","Multicenter Comparative Clinical Trial: EUS-Guided Gallbladder Drainage Versus Conservative Management in Patients Unfit for Surgery After a Biliary Event Without Cholecystitis. DRECON Study: (DRainage, Endoscopic Ultrasound, CONservative)","DRECON","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Patients ≥ 18 years of age\n* Patients who have experienced a benign biliary event (biliary colic, acute pancreatitis, cholangitis, or choledocholithiasis) and are candidates for elective cholecystectomy\n* Patients deemed unfuit for surgery (age ≥ 80 years, ASA score ≥ 3, Charlson Comorbidity Index ≥ 5) or who voluntarily refuse surgery\n* Diagnosis of lithogenic\u002Flithiasic material in the gallbladder by imaging (biliary sludge, microlithiasis, and\u002For cholelithiasis)\n* Signed informed consent\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* No signed informed consent\n* Prior cholecystectomy\n* Biliary event secondary to malignant etiology\n* Acute cholecystitis diagnosed according to Tokyo 2018 criteria\n* Moderate-to-severe ascites without prior paracentesis\n* Perforated gallbladder\n* Severe coagulopathy (INR \\> 1.5) or thrombocytopenia (platelets \\\u003C 50,000\u002FμL) not correctable\n* Any clinical condition preventing sedation\n* Patient dependent for daily activities (ECOG ≥ 4)",{"count":55,"type":22},110,[25],"Cholecystectomy is considered the standard definitive treatment after an acute biliary event (biliary colic, acute pancreatitis, cholangitis, or choledocholithiasis). However, in elderly patients and\u002For those with significant comorbidities, surgery is often not feasible, leaving this population at high risk of biliary event recurrence (approximately 25-31% per year without treatment).\n\nEUS-guided gallbladder drainage (EUS-GBD) using a lumen-apposing metal stent (LAMS) is an established endoscopic technique currently recommended for acute cholecystitis in patients unfit for surgery. It creates an internal fistula between the gallbladder and the adjacent digestive tract, allowing direct endoscopic access for stone clearance (cholecystoscopy). This approach could theoretically prevent biliary event recurrence similarly to cholecystectomy.\n\nThe DRECON study (DRainaige, Endoscopic ultrasound, CONservative) is a multicenter, randomized, comparative clinical trial evaluating whether EUS-GBD with LAMS reduces biliary recurrence at 1 year compared to conservative managment (CM) in patients unfit for surgery after a biliary event without acute cholecystitis who are candidates for elective cholecystectomy.\n\nPrimary hypothesis: EUS-GBD will reduce the risk of biliary event recurrence (biliary colic, acute pancreatitis, cholangitis, choledocholithiasis, or cholecystitis) at 1 year of follow-up compared to conservative management in patients unfit for surgery with gallbladder lithiasis.\n\nEstimated sample: 110 patients (55 per arm). Randomization 1:1 (EUS-GBD vs CM), stratified by centre and prior biliary sphincterotomy. Duration: 24 months recruitment + 12 months follow-up (total 3 years).\n\nParticipating centres: Hospital Universitari Mútua de Terrassa (coordinating centre), Hospital Universitari de Bellvitge, Hospital General de Granollers, Hospital Universitari Parc Taulí de Sabadell, Hospital Universitari de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau, Hospital Clínico Universitario de Valencia, Hospital General Universitario Dr Balmis and Complexo Hospitalario Universitario de A Coruña.",[59,60,61,28,62,63,64,65],"Cholecystectomy","Gallbladder","Endoscopic Ultrasound (EUS)","Acute Pancreatitis Due to Common Bile Duct Calculus","Biliary Colic","Acute Pancreatitis Due to Gallstones","Cholangitis; Choledocholithiasis",[67,68,69,70,71,61],"gallbladder","gallblader drainage","conservative treatment","biliary recurrence","cholecystectomy","2026-06-17",{"date":74,"type":37},"2026-06-22",{"date":39,"type":22},{"date":77,"type":22},"2029-07-01",{"name":79,"class":44},"Hospital Mutua de Terrassa",{"id":81,"slug":82,"hasResults":11,"nctId":83,"briefTitle":84,"officialTitle":85,"acronym":86,"eligibilityCriteria":87,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":17,"minAge":18,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":88,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":90,"phases":4,"briefSummary":91,"conditions":92,"keywords":95,"overallStatus":33,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":102,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":103,"startDateStruct":105,"completionDateStruct":106,"leadSponsor":108,"locationsCount":45},"100641557","endoscopic-vs-non-endoscopic-drainage-for-benign-gallbladder-diseases-in-high-risk-patients-or-patients-desiring-gallbladder-preservation-100641557","NCT07649811","Endoscopic vs Non-endoscopic Drainage for Benign Gallbladder Diseases in High-risk Patients or Patients Desiring Gallbladder Preservation","Efficacy and Safety Evaluation of Endoscopic Treatment for Benign Gallbladder Diseases: A Multicenter Prospective Cohort Study","GB-PRESERVE","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Age ≥ 18 years, and voluntarily signed the informed consent form;\n* Radiologically confirmed symptomatic benign gallbladder disease (symptomatic gallbladder stones, gallbladder polyps meeting surgical indications, acute cholecystitis TG18 Grade I\u002FII); and meeting any of the following specific population criteria:\n\n  1. High-risk surgical patients: ASA classification ≥ III, or presence of severe comorbidities that significantly increase the risk of laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC);\n  2. Patients with concomitant common bile duct stones (CBDS) and a strong desire for gallbladder preservation: presence of CBDS confirmed by MRCP\u002FERCP examination, and still strongly requesting the preservation of gallbladder function after being fully informed.\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Suspected or confirmed gallbladder malignancy;\n* Complications requiring emergency surgical intervention (gangrene, perforation, diffuse peritonitis);\n* Uncorrectable severe coagulation dysfunction;\n* Presence of severe anatomical deformity or obstruction of the stomach, duodenum, or esophagus, where the endoscope is expected to be unable to reach the target site (papilla or pericholecystic area);\n* Significant gallbladder atrophy (longitudinal diameter \\\u003C 4 cm or anteroposterior diameter \\\u003C 2 cm);\n* Pregnant or lactating women;\n* Previous history of cholecystectomy;\n* Presence of psychiatric disorders or any condition that prevents cooperation with treatment and follow-up;\n* Unwilling or unable to sign the informed consent form.",{"count":89,"type":22},220,"OBSERVATIONAL","Common gallbladder conditions like gallstones, polyps, and gallbladder inflammation are typically treated by surgically removing the gallbladder. However, surgery may be too risky for elderly patients or those with severe medical conditions, and some patients strongly prefer to keep their gallbladder.\n\nNewer, less-invasive endoscopic treatments can drain the gallbladder to treat inflammation without surgery. However, after successful drainage, doctors currently do not know whether it is better to leave a stent inside for long-term drainage or to actively remove the gallbladder stones using an endoscope.\n\nThis multicenter study will follow patients in a real-world setting to compare these two approaches: the endoscopic treatment group (stone removal after drainage) and the non-endoscopic treatment group (long-term drainage alone). The goal is to evaluate which method is safer and more effective over the long term, helping doctors make better clinical decisions and improve patients' quality of life.",[93,94,28],"Gallbladder Diseases","Cholecystitis, Acute",[96,97,98,99,100,101],"EUS-GBD","ET-GBD","PT-GBD","Gallbladder Preservation","High Surgical Risk","Endoscopic Drainage","2026-06-11",{"date":104,"type":37},"2026-06-16",{"date":39,"type":22},{"date":107,"type":22},"2027-12-31",{"name":109,"class":44},"Air Force Military Medical University, China",{"id":111,"slug":112,"hasResults":11,"nctId":113,"briefTitle":114,"officialTitle":115,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":116,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":17,"minAge":18,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":117,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":23,"phases":119,"briefSummary":120,"conditions":121,"keywords":125,"overallStatus":33,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":131,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":132,"startDateStruct":134,"completionDateStruct":136,"leadSponsor":137,"locationsCount":139},"100642549","supraglottic-oxygenation-via-oral-transtracheal-catheter-for-reducing-the-incidence-of-hypoxemia-during-ercp-under-sedation-100642549","NCT07637721","Supraglottic Oxygenation Via Oral Transtracheal Catheter for Reducing the Incidence of Hypoxemia During ERCP Under Sedation","Supraglottic Oxygenation Via Oral Transtracheal Catheter for Reducing the Incidence of Hypoxemia During ERCP Under Sedation：a Randomized Controlled Trial","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Age≥18years\n* The ASA classification ranges from I to III\n* Patients have signed the informed consent form\n* Patients scheduled to undergo sedated ERCP examination procedure\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Severe cardiac dysfunction (\\\u003C4 METs);\n* Diagnosed chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) or other acute\u002Fchronic pulmonary diseases requiring long-term\u002Fintermittent oxygen therapy;\n* Upper respiratory tract infections including oral, nasal or pharyngeal infections;\n* Fever (core temperature \\>37.5°C);\n* Confirmed pregnancy or current breastfeeding;\n* Hypersensitivity to sedative drugs such as propofol;\n* Current participation in other clinical trials;",{"count":118,"type":22},410,[25],"Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is commonly used for the diagnosis and treatment of pancreatobiliary diseases. While Monitored Anesthesia Care (MAC) enhances the efficiency of ERCP, deep sedation introduces significant airway risks, particularly hypoxemia resulting from sedative-induced upper airway collapse. With reported hypoxemia rates ranging from 10% to 69%, and the potential for severe complications such as myocardial ischemia and neurological damage, effective airway management is paramount. Supraglottic oxygenation via oral transtracheal catheter provides a viable method for relieving obstruction and enabling positive pressure ventilation, serving as a less invasive alternative to tracheal intubation. Despite its proven utility in other settings, this technique has not yet been evaluated in the context of deeply sedated ERCP.",[122,123,124,28],"Choledocholithiasis With Cholecystitis With Obstruction","Obstructive Jaundice","Pancreatitis",[126,127,128,129,130],"ERCP","Monitored Anesthesia Care","deep sedation","hypoxemia","The Supraglottic Oxygenation Via Oral Transtracheal Catheter","2026-06-09",{"date":133,"type":37},"2026-06-10",{"date":135,"type":22},"2026-06-12",{"date":107,"type":22},{"name":138,"class":44},"Zhejiang University",3,{"id":141,"slug":142,"hasResults":11,"nctId":143,"briefTitle":144,"officialTitle":145,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":146,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":17,"minAge":18,"maxAge":19,"enrollmentInfo":147,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":23,"phases":149,"briefSummary":150,"conditions":151,"keywords":154,"overallStatus":157,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":158,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":159,"startDateStruct":161,"completionDateStruct":163,"leadSponsor":165,"locationsCount":45},"100635439","usg-guided-tapa-vs-rifb-block-for-postoperative-analgesia-in-laparoscopic-cholecystectomy-100635439","NCT07552701","USG-Guided TAPA vs RIFB Block for Postoperative Analgesia in Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy","Comparison of Ultrasonography-Guided the Postoperative Analgesic Efficacy of Perichondrial Approach Modified Thoracoabdominal Nerve Block and Recto-Intercostal Fascial Plan Block in Patients Who Underwent Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Age 18-65 years\n* ASA physical classification I-II\n* BMI \\\u003C 35 kg\u002Fm²\n* Scheduled for elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy due to cholelithiasis\n* Able to use and understand the NRS pain scoring system\n* Able to use and understand the QoR-15 scale\n* Able to communicate in Turkish\n* Provided written informed consent\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Refusal to participate in the study\n* BMI \\> 35 kg\u002Fm²\n* ASA physical classification III-V\n* Age \\\u003C 18 or \\> 65 years\n* Allergy to local anesthetics or study analgesics\n* Pregnancy or breastfeeding\n* Inability to use or understand the NRS pain scoring system or QoR-15 scale\n* Inability to communicate in Turkish\n* Uncontrolled anxiety disorder\n* Alcohol or drug dependency\n* Neuromuscular or peripheral nerve disease\n* High-dose opioid use within 3 days prior to surgery\n* Widespread chronic pain\n* Diabetes mellitus\n* Hepatic or renal insufficiency\n* Coagulation disorders or anticoagulant use\n* Infection at the block needle insertion site\n* Concurrent second surgical procedure alongside laparoscopic cholecystectomy\n* Previous abdominal surgery or trauma history\n* Conversion from laparoscopic to open surgery\n* Technical problems with the PCA device\n* NRS score \\> 7 for four consecutive hours despite multimodal analgesia\n* Planned postoperative non-extubation\n* Termination of surgery before completion for any reason",{"count":148,"type":22},70,[25],"Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) can cause moderate-to-severe postoperative pain from visceral, referred shoulder, and incisional sources. Multimodal analgesia is recommended, but opioids carry significant side effects. Ultrasound-guided interfascial plane blocks offer a safe alternative. The Modified Thoracoabdominal Nerve Block through Perichondrial Approach (M-TAPA) blocks T5-T12 dermatomes, while the Recto-Intercostal Fascial Plane Block (RIFPB) provides sensory blockade across the upper anterolateral abdomen. This study compares the postoperative analgesic efficacy of bilateral M-TAPA versus bilateral RIFPB in patients undergoing LC.",[29,152,28,153],"Acute Cholecystitis","Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting",[31,155,156],"Transversus abdominis Plane Block","Rectus-intercostalis facial plane block","RECRUITING","2026-04-20",{"date":160,"type":37},"2026-04-27",{"date":162,"type":37},"2025-03-16",{"date":164,"type":22},"2026-05-30",{"name":166,"class":44},"Hitit University",{"id":168,"slug":169,"hasResults":11,"nctId":170,"briefTitle":171,"officialTitle":172,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":173,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":17,"minAge":18,"maxAge":19,"enrollmentInfo":174,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":23,"phases":176,"briefSummary":177,"conditions":178,"keywords":179,"overallStatus":33,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":184,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":185,"startDateStruct":187,"completionDateStruct":189,"leadSponsor":191,"locationsCount":4},"100632310","effects-of-postoperative-video-assisted-early-mobilization-on-recovery-outcomes-100632310","NCT07512024","Effects of Postoperative Video-assisted Early Mobilization on Recovery Outcomes","The Effect of Video-assisted Early Mobilization Training on Patient Outcomes in Individuals Undergoing Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: a Randomized Controlled Trial","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Adults aged 18 to 65 years.\n* Scheduled for elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy.\n* Classified as ASA I or ASA II according to the American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status Classification.\n* Ability to read and understand Turkish.\n* Adequate cognitive capacity to understand video education and operate the wearable activity tracker.\n* Willingness to participate and signing the informed consent form\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Chronic pain syndrome or severe chronic orthopedic\u002Frheumatologic pain conditions.\n* Pre-existing mobility limitations.\n* Endocrine or metabolic diseases affecting cortisol or glucose (e.g., diabetes, thyroid disorders, Addison's disease, Cushing's syndrome).\n* Use of medications affecting the HPA axis (e.g., systemic corticosteroids, chronic opioids, high-dose benzodiazepines).\n* Diagnosed severe psychiatric or cognitive disorders (e.g., dementia, major depression).\n* Skin allergies or medical device contraindications preventing use of the activity tracker.\n* Conversion to open surgery or major intraoperative complications.",{"count":175,"type":22},44,[25],"This randomized controlled trial aims to evaluate the effects of video-assisted early mobilization education on postoperative recovery in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy. As part of the intervention, structured and professionally produced educational videos will be used to explain the physiological benefits of early mobilization in the preoperative period and to demonstrate step-by-step mobilization techniques in the postoperative period.\n\nPatients in the intervention group will receive video-assisted mobilization education in addition to standard postoperative care, while patients in the control group will receive standard care alone. Physical activity levels will be objectively monitored using wearable activity tracking devices during the first 24 hours after surgery.\n\nThe study will assess the effects of video-assisted early mobilization education on postoperative physiological stress response, pain, nausea and vomiting, blood glucose levels, mobilization performance, gastrointestinal recovery, length of hospital stay, and patient satisfaction. In addition, postoperative complications, emergency department visits, and hospital readmissions within 30-days after surgery will be evaluated as exploratory outcomes.",[28],[180,181,182,183,29],"Postoperative Recovery","Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS)","Early Mobilization","Surgical Stress Response","2026-04-04",{"date":186,"type":37},"2026-04-09",{"date":188,"type":22},"2026-05",{"date":190,"type":22},"2027-01",{"name":192,"class":44},"Muş Alparslan University",{"id":194,"slug":195,"hasResults":11,"nctId":196,"briefTitle":197,"officialTitle":198,"acronym":199,"eligibilityCriteria":200,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":17,"minAge":18,"maxAge":201,"enrollmentInfo":202,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":23,"phases":203,"briefSummary":204,"conditions":205,"keywords":206,"overallStatus":33,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":211,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":212,"startDateStruct":214,"completionDateStruct":216,"leadSponsor":218,"locationsCount":45},"100629740","effect-of-erector-spinae-plane-block-on-postoperative-respiratory-function-after-laparoscopic-cholecystectomy-100629740","NCT07478601","Effect of Erector Spinae Plane Block on Postoperative Respiratory Function After Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy","Effect of Ultrasound-Guided Erector Spinae Plane Block on Postoperative Pain and Respiratory Function in Patients Undergoing Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Study","ESP-LC","Inclusion Criteria:\n\nAge between 18 and 65 years ASA physical status I-III-- III Patients scheduled for elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy under general anesthesia Ability to perform spirometry tests Provision of written informed consent\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\nPatient refusal to participate Chronic pulmonary disease (e.g., COPD, asthma, restrictive lung disease) Morbid obesity (BMI ≥ 35 kg\u002Fm²) Coagulopathy or anticoagulant therapy Local infection at the block site Allergy to local anesthetic agents Pregnancy Previous thoracic surgery Neuromuscular disease affecting respiratory function Conversion from laparoscopic to open surgery Inability to perform postoperative spirometry","70 Years",{"count":148,"type":22},[25],"Postoperative pulmonary dysfunction is frequently observed after laparoscopic abdominal surgery due to the combined effects of general anesthesia, pneumoperitoneum, diaphragmatic dysfunction, and postoperative pain. These factors may impair respiratory mechanics, reduce lung volumes, and negatively affect postoperative recovery. Effective postoperative analgesia plays a crucial role in preserving respiratory function by allowing adequate ventilation and reducing pain-related respiratory limitation.\n\nThe erector spinae plane (ESP) block is a relatively novel ultrasound-guided fascial plane block that provides thoracoabdominal analgesia through the spread of local anesthetic along the paraspinal fascial planes. By reducing postoperative pain and opioid consumption, ESP block may contribute to improved respiratory mechanics and preservation of postoperative pulmonary function.\n\nThe aim of this prospective randomized controlled study is to evaluate the effect of ultrasound-guided erector spinae plane block on postoperative respiratory function and pain in patients undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Patients will be randomized into two groups: an ESP block group receiving bilateral ultrasound-guided erector spinae plane block and a control group receiving standard analgesic management.\n\nPostoperative respiratory parameters will be evaluated using spirometry measurements including forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1), forced vital capacity (FVC), the FEV1\u002FFVC ratio, and forced expiratory flow at 25-75% of the pulmonary volume (FEF25-75). In addition, arterial blood gas parameters and postoperative pain scores will be assessed and compared between the groups.\n\nThe study aims to determine whether ultrasound-guided erector spinae plane block improves postoperative respiratory function and contributes to better postoperative recovery in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy.",[28],[28,207,208,31,29,209,210],"Erector Spinae Plane Block","Postoperative Respiratory Function","Regional Anesthesia","Spirometry","2026-03-12",{"date":213,"type":37},"2026-03-17",{"date":215,"type":22},"2026-05-24",{"date":217,"type":22},"2027-06-25",{"name":219,"class":44},"Uludag University",{"id":221,"slug":222,"hasResults":11,"nctId":223,"briefTitle":224,"officialTitle":224,"acronym":225,"eligibilityCriteria":226,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":17,"minAge":18,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":227,"targetDuration":229,"studyType":90,"phases":4,"briefSummary":230,"conditions":231,"keywords":235,"overallStatus":157,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":243,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":244,"startDateStruct":246,"completionDateStruct":248,"leadSponsor":250,"locationsCount":45},"100629362","feasibility-study-of-non-contact-imaging-based-physiological-monitoring-in-the-operating-room-100629362","NCT07473687","Feasibility Study of Non-Contact Imaging-Based Physiological Monitoring in the Operating Room","IBPM","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n1. Patients aged \\>18 years.\n2. Patients scheduled to undergo surgical procedures under general anesthesia.\n3. American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) Physical Status I, II, or III.\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n1. Patients aged \\\u003C 18 years.\n2. Pregnant patients.\n3. Patients whose facial images cannot be captured or recognized (e.g., due to surgical drapes, severe edema, or major trauma).\n4. Patients who refuse to participate or have not signed the informed consent form.\n5. Other cases deemed unsuitable for the study by the clinical physician or anesthesiologist.",{"count":228,"type":22},315,"1 Day","This study aims to evaluate the feasibility and accuracy of a non-contact, camera-based physiological monitoring technology in a perioperative setting (including anesthesia induction, surgery, and recovery).Conventional vital sign monitoring tools-such as ECG leads, blood pressure cuffs, and pulse oximeters-require direct skin contact, which may pose risks of cross-infection or skin injury in vulnerable populations (e.g., newborns or elderly patients). This research utilizes remote Photoplethysmography (rPPG) technology to estimate vital signs, including heart rate, blood pressure, and blood oxygen saturation (SpO2), by analyzing facial video captured via standard camera devices (Logitech C930, iPhone 16 Pro Max, and Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra).The primary goal is to assess the consistency and stability of this non-contact system compared to clinical gold-standard monitors (Masimo Root, SedLine O3, and Radical-7) during actual surgical procedures. The findings will serve as a foundation for developing non-invasive, supplementary monitoring tools in dynamic clinical environments.",[232,233,28,234],"Cholecystitis","Liver Neoplasms","Inguinal Hernia",[236,237,238,239,240,241,242],"General anesthesia","Intraoperative monitoring","Camera-based monitor","Non-contact Physiological Monitoring","Total Extraperitoneal Approach (TEP)","Remote Sensing","Perioperative Care","2026-03-10",{"date":245,"type":37},"2026-03-16",{"date":247,"type":37},"2026-01-08",{"date":249,"type":22},"2030-06-30",{"name":251,"class":252},"Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taiwan","OTHER_GOV",{"id":254,"slug":255,"hasResults":11,"nctId":256,"briefTitle":257,"officialTitle":258,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":259,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":17,"minAge":18,"maxAge":260,"enrollmentInfo":261,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":90,"phases":4,"briefSummary":263,"conditions":264,"keywords":265,"overallStatus":157,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":269,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":270,"startDateStruct":272,"completionDateStruct":273,"leadSponsor":275,"locationsCount":277},"100627762","impact-of-pringle-maneuver-on-postoperative-gallbladder-diseases-after-hepatectomy-100627762","NCT07452848","Impact of Pringle Maneuver on Postoperative Gallbladder Diseases After Hepatectomy","Impact of Pringle Maneuver on the Occurrence of Postoperative Gallbladder Diseases After Hepatectomy: A Multicenter Retrospective Cohort Study","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Aged 18 to 85 years.\n* Definitive diagnosis of hepatic solid lesions confirmed by imaging (such as CT, MRI, or ultrasound) and\u002For pathology.\n* Underwent elective hepatectomy with gallbladder preservation.\n* Preoperative liver function evaluated as Child-Pugh class A or B.\n* Preoperative American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status classification of I, II, or III.\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Preoperative evaluation indicating pre-existing biliary tract diseases (e.g., cholelithiasis, biliary inflammation, neoplastic lesions).\n* History of previous upper abdominal surgery.\n* Application of non-hepatic inflow occlusion methods during surgery (e.g., hemihepatic vascular occlusion, selective segmental vascular occlusion).\n* Personal history of long-term use of hormone replacement therapy, somatostatin and its analogues, or oral contraceptives.\n* Loss to follow-up or missing critical data postoperatively.","85 Years",{"count":262,"type":22},2000,"The liver is an organ with a rich blood supply. During liver surgery (hepatectomy), surgeons often temporarily clamp the blood vessels supplying the liver to maintain a clear surgical field and reduce bleeding. This common technique is known as the Pringle maneuver. However, this maneuver also temporarily cuts off the blood supply to the gallbladder. Currently, doctors debate whether to routinely remove a healthy gallbladder during liver surgery to prevent future gallbladder problems, or to preserve it.\n\nThe primary purpose of this multicenter retrospective cohort study is to evaluate whether using the Pringle maneuver during liver surgery increases the risk of patients developing gallbladder diseases (such as gallstones or inflammation) later on. Researchers will review the past medical records of patients who underwent liver surgery with their gallbladder preserved between January 2012 and January 2022. By comparing patients who had the Pringle maneuver with those who did not, the study aims to provide reliable clinical evidence to help surgeons make better decisions about whether to preserve or remove the gallbladder during liver surgery.",[93,28],[266,267,268],"Pringle maneuver","Hepatectomy","Hepatic inflow occlusion","2026-03-01",{"date":271,"type":37},"2026-03-05",{"date":269,"type":22},{"date":274,"type":22},"2026-08",{"name":276,"class":44},"West China Hospital",8,{"id":279,"slug":280,"hasResults":11,"nctId":281,"briefTitle":282,"officialTitle":283,"acronym":284,"eligibilityCriteria":285,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":17,"minAge":18,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":286,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":23,"phases":288,"briefSummary":289,"conditions":290,"keywords":291,"overallStatus":157,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":294,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":295,"startDateStruct":297,"completionDateStruct":299,"leadSponsor":301,"locationsCount":45},"100616678","pain-diary-use-after-laparoscopic-cholecystectomy-100616678","NCT07308730","Pain Diary Use After Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy","Randomized Controlled Trial on the Use of Pain Diary in Assessing Early Postoperative Pain Following Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy","PDP-LC","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n1. Admitted for elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy\n2. Scheduled for first-time laparoscopic cholecystectomy\n3. Aged 18 years or older\n4. Able to speak, read, and understand Turkish\n5. Literate\n6. Communicative and cooperative\n7. ASA score of 1, 2, or 3\n8. Expected to stay at least 24 hours in the hospital post-surgery\n9. Capable of understanding study instructions\n10. Willing to participate voluntarily\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n1. Prolonged stay in the recovery unit due to extended effects of general anesthesia\n2. Admission to intensive care unit postoperatively\n3. Having chronic pain and receiving treatment for it\n4. Being a cancer patient\n5. Having a writing disability\n6. Inability to communicate\n7. Having cognitive, affective, verbal, visual, or auditory impairments\n8. Diagnosed psychiatric disorders such as anxiety or depression and using related medications\n9. Choosing to withdraw from the study after giving consent",{"count":287,"type":22},142,[25],"This randomized controlled study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of using a pain diary in the assessment of early postoperative pain in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Patients will be randomly assigned to a pain diary group or a control group receiving routine pain assessment. Postoperative pain intensity will be measured at predefined time points using standardized pain assessment tools. The study seeks to improve patient participation in postoperative pain evaluation without introducing additional pharmacological interventions.",[28,29],[29,292,31,293],"Daily Pain Assessment","Pain Diary","2025-12-31",{"date":296,"type":37},"2026-01-06",{"date":298,"type":37},"2025-11-15",{"date":300,"type":22},"2027-01-30",{"name":302,"class":44},"Muğla Sıtkı Koçman University",{"id":304,"slug":305,"hasResults":11,"nctId":306,"briefTitle":307,"officialTitle":307,"acronym":308,"eligibilityCriteria":309,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":17,"minAge":310,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":311,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":23,"phases":313,"briefSummary":314,"conditions":315,"keywords":4,"overallStatus":157,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":318,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":319,"startDateStruct":321,"completionDateStruct":323,"leadSponsor":325,"locationsCount":327},"100593052","cholecystectomy-after-successful-endoscopic-common-bile-duct-stone-extraction-in-elderly-100593052","NCT07001423","ChOlecystectomy aFter successFul Endoscopic Common Bile Duct Stone Extraction in Elderly","COFFEE","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Common bile duct stones cleared after Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangio Pancreatography (ERCP)\n* Age \\>= 80 years or age 75-79 years with a Charlson Comorbidity index \\>=2\n* gallbladder in situ\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Acute Cholecystitis\n* Biliary Pancreatitis\n* Severe or moderately severe post-ERCP pancreatitis\n* Chronic pancreatitis\n* Bile duct pathology\n* Widespread malignancy\n* Unable to give consent","75 Years",{"count":312,"type":22},400,[25],"The goal of this study is to compare safety and efficacy of laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus wait-and-see policy after endoscopic removal of common bile duct stones in elderly. The primary endpoint is a composite outcome: Death or major postoperative complications or recurrent biliary disease within 1 year after randomization.",[316,317,28],"Cholecystectomy, Laparoscopic","Choledocholithiasis","2025-10-02",{"date":320,"type":37},"2025-10-07",{"date":322,"type":22},"2025-10-03",{"date":324,"type":22},"2032-08-31",{"name":326,"class":44},"Helsinki University Central Hospital",12,{"id":329,"slug":330,"hasResults":11,"nctId":331,"briefTitle":332,"officialTitle":333,"acronym":334,"eligibilityCriteria":335,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":17,"minAge":18,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":336,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":23,"phases":338,"briefSummary":339,"conditions":340,"keywords":342,"overallStatus":157,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":344,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":345,"startDateStruct":347,"completionDateStruct":349,"leadSponsor":351,"locationsCount":45},"100525544","stall-vs-sole-local-wound-infiltration-in-laparoscopic-cholecystectomy-100525544","NCT06123117","STALL vs Sole Local Wound Infiltration in Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy","Single Transversus Abdominis Laparoscopy-guided Plane Block Combined With Local Trocar Site Ropivacaine Infiltration (STALL) vs Sole Local Wound Infiltration in LCC (Laparoscopic CholeCystectomy) - Double-blinded Randomized Controlled Trial.","STALL","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* All patients scheduled for elective or emergency LCC, aged over 18 and able to give an informed consent.\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Age under 18 years, chronic daily opioid and\u002For pain tolerance \u002F pain threshold -modifying medication use (abuse), pregnancy, known allergy to local anesthetics, diagnosed severe coagulopathy and incapability to give informed consent for whatever reason.",{"count":337,"type":22},850,[25],"This trial is a prospective randomized superiority trial comparing sole ropivacaine based local trocar site infiltration to local infiltration combined with laparoscopic ropivacaine TAP block (STALL) in LCC.\n\nThere are only a few randomized trials comparing sole local anesthesia to additional laparoscopic TAP block in laparoscopic cholecystectomy and they have yet failed to show evidence in favor of TAP block.\n\nWe hypothesize STALL (Single Transversus Abdominis Laparoscopy-guided plane block combined with Local trocar site ropivacaine infiltration) is superior to local port site infiltration, provided that the sample size is sufficiently big.\n\nThe aim of this randomized study is to compare the efficacy of sole local anesthesia of trocar sites to STALL in LCC.",[28,232,341],"Gallbladder Cancer",[343],"laparoscopic transversus abdominis plane block","2025-09-10",{"date":346,"type":37},"2025-09-11",{"date":348,"type":37},"2024-01-16",{"date":350,"type":22},"2027-10",{"name":326,"class":44},{"id":353,"slug":354,"hasResults":11,"nctId":355,"briefTitle":356,"officialTitle":357,"acronym":358,"eligibilityCriteria":359,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":17,"minAge":18,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":360,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":23,"phases":362,"briefSummary":363,"conditions":364,"keywords":366,"overallStatus":157,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":367,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":368,"startDateStruct":370,"completionDateStruct":372,"leadSponsor":374,"locationsCount":376},"100524798","timing-of-cholecystectomy-in-severe-pancreatitis-100524798","NCT06113419","Timing of CHolecystectomy In Severe PAncreatitis","Timing of CHolecystectomy In Severe PAncreatitis (CHISPA): Study Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial.","CHISPA","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Age ≥18 years, diagnosis of pancreatitis according to Atlanta guidelines, moderately severe or severe pancreatitis (APACHE score ≥8 on admittance)\n* Biliary pancreatitis diagnosed on imaging (be it ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging and\u002For tomography)\n* Recovery of pancreatitis by tolerance of oral intake (defined as 24 hours of food consumption of any consistency without emetic episodes and pain defined as 4\u002F10 on the visual analogue score of pain) and written informed consent.\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Pregnancy\n* History of cholecystectomy\n* Planned open cholecystectomy\n* Pancreatitis-associated complication before laparoscopic cholecystectomy (compartment syndrome, bleeding and\u002For need for peripancreatic collection drainage)\n* Chronic pancreatitis,\n* More than one episode of pancreatitis\n* Active malignant disease\n* Septic shock\n* Choledocholithiasis not resolved by ERCP, post-ERCP perforation and post-ERCP concomitant pancreatitis.",{"count":361,"type":22},134,[25],"The goal of this clinical trial is to compare outcomes for interval or early laparoscopic cholecystectomy in patients with moderately severe and severe pancreatitis. The main question\\[s\\] it aims to answer are:\n\n* To establish whether there is a difference in surgical outcomes comparing patients diagnosed with severe or moderately severe pancreatitis on which early cholecystectomy was performed versus performing interval cholecystectomy.\n* The primary endpoint will be to evaluate major complications, defined as a Clavien-Dindo score greater than or equal to III\u002FV.\n* Secondary endpoints include evaluating minor complications (defined as a Clavien-Dindo score below III\u002FV), biliary disease recurrence, mortality, postoperative hospital stay and postoperative admittance into an intensive care unit.\n\nParticipants will be randomly assigned to either group: early cholecystectomy during the pancreatitis hospitalization or interval cholecystectomy scheduled 4 weeks after clinical resolution of pancreatitis.",[365,28],"Acute Pancreatitis",[71,365,28],"2025-09-09",{"date":369,"type":37},"2025-09-15",{"date":371,"type":37},"2024-04-01",{"date":373,"type":22},"2027-06",{"name":375,"class":44},"Hospital Universitario Mayor Méderi",2,{"id":378,"slug":379,"hasResults":11,"nctId":380,"briefTitle":381,"officialTitle":382,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":383,"healthyVolunteers":384,"sex":17,"minAge":18,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":385,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":90,"phases":4,"briefSummary":387,"conditions":388,"keywords":392,"overallStatus":157,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":397,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":398,"startDateStruct":400,"completionDateStruct":402,"leadSponsor":404,"locationsCount":45},"100552106","intestinal-ischemia-biomarker-in-patients-with-chronic-mesenteric-ischemia-100552106","NCT06468774","Intestinal Ischemia Biomarker in Patients With Chronic Mesenteric Ischemia","Intestinal Ischemia Biomarker and Quality of Life of the Patients With Chronic Mesenteric Ischemia and Median Arcuate Ligament Syndrome","Inclusion Criteria: Above 18 years and has given informed written consent for treatment and study participation\n\nFor the patient groups :\n\nGroup 1: Has CTA or ultrasound diagnosed MALS and is scheduled operative treatment.\n\nGroup 2: Has CTA or ultrasound diagnosed CMI and is scheduled operative or endovascular treatment.\n\nFor the control group:\n\nGroup 3- Has ultrasound based diagnosis of cholelithiasis and is scheduled for cholecystectomy.\n\nGroup 4- Has established Mb Crohn diagnosis and under gastric lab follow-up. Group 5- Young healthy blood donors of mean age 45 years and has excluded MALS or CMi with ultrasound.\n\nGroup 6- Healthy blood donors of mean age 70 years and has excluded MALS or CMi with ultrasound.\n\nExclusion Criteria: Age less than 18 years Has nor given written consent.\n\n\\-",true,{"count":386,"type":22},180,"Plasma Alpha glutathione S transferase (Alpha GST) has been previously demonstrated to be raised in patients with chronic mesenteric ischemia (CMI) caused by atherosclerosis and in patients with median arcuate ligament syndrome (MALS). Raised plasma level of Alpha GST has been demonstrated to decrease or normalize after surgical treatment of patients with CMI and MALS as compared with healthy individuals.\n\nThis study compares the plasma Alpha GST in patients with CMI and MALS with those with 1-Morbus Crohn, 2-Gallstone disease, and age-matched healthy individuals.\n\nBesides, changes in the health-related quality of life (QoL) will be investigated in the study individuals.",[389,390,391,28],"Chronic Mesenteric Ischemia","Median Arcuate Ligament Syndrome","Crohn Disease",[393,394,395,396],"Intestinal ishchemia biomarker","alpha GST","MALS","Chronic mesenteric ischemia","2025-07-29",{"date":399,"type":37},"2025-07-30",{"date":401,"type":37},"2024-06-10",{"date":403,"type":22},"2037-05-31",{"name":405,"class":44},"Oslo University Hospital",{"id":407,"slug":408,"hasResults":11,"nctId":409,"briefTitle":410,"officialTitle":410,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":411,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":17,"minAge":18,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":412,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":23,"phases":414,"briefSummary":416,"conditions":417,"keywords":418,"overallStatus":157,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":422,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":423,"startDateStruct":425,"completionDateStruct":427,"leadSponsor":429,"locationsCount":45},"100596938","phase-2-feasibility-and-safety-of-supraglottic-oxygen-delivery-via-an-endotracheal-tube-for-non-intubated-ercp-anesthesia-a-two-stage-phase-ii-clinical-study-100596938","NCT07051980","Feasibility and Safety of Supraglottic Oxygen Delivery Via an Endotracheal Tube for Non-intubated ERCP Anesthesia: A Two-Stage Phase II Clinical Study","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Age ≥18 years；\n* The ASA classification ranges from I to III.\n* Patients have signed the informed consent form.\n* Patients scheduled to undergo sedated ERCP examination;\n* The estimated duration of the procedure does not exceed 45 minutes.\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Severe cardiac dysfunction (\\\u003C4 METs);\n* Severe renal insufficiency (requiring preoperative dialysis);\n* Diagnosed chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) or other acute\u002Fchronic pulmonary diseases requiring long-term\u002Fintermittent oxygen therapy;\n* Increased intracranial pressure;\n* Upper respiratory tract infections (oral\u002Fnasal\u002Fpharyngeal);\n* Fever (core temperature \\>37.5°C);\n* Confirmed pregnancy or current breastfeeding;\n* Allergy to sedatives (e.g., propofol) or medical adhesives;\n* BMI \\>30 kg\u002Fm²;\n* Current participation in other clinical trials;",{"count":413,"type":22},50,[415],"PHASE2","Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is a technique for evaluating the bile duct, pancreatic duct, and ampulla. Hypoxia is the most common cardiopulmonary complication during ERCP, with a reported rate of 16.2 to 39.2%. The key to preventing hypoxia is to ensure the sufficient oxygenation and ventilation of patients during these procedures. The commonly used approaches to treat hypoxia with a non-instrumented airway are increasing the oxygen flow and lifting the jaw, applying with both hands, displacing the jaw upwards and anteriorly, which allowed the upper airway to remain open. We hypothesized that the supraglottic oxygen delivery via an endotracheal tube can reduce the incidence of hypoxia in patients under deep sedation during ERCP.",[122,123,124,28],[126,419,420,421],"respiratory depression","Hypoxia","Sedation","2025-07-14",{"date":424,"type":37},"2025-07-17",{"date":426,"type":37},"2025-06-12",{"date":428,"type":22},"2026-12-31",{"name":138,"class":44},{"id":431,"slug":432,"hasResults":11,"nctId":433,"briefTitle":434,"officialTitle":434,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":435,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":17,"minAge":18,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":436,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":23,"phases":437,"briefSummary":438,"conditions":439,"keywords":440,"overallStatus":157,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":442,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":443,"startDateStruct":445,"completionDateStruct":446,"leadSponsor":447,"locationsCount":376},"100593925","phase-2-combo-endoscopy-oropharyngeal-airway-in-sedated-endoscopic-retrograde-cholangiopancreatography-for-patients-100593925","NCT07012772","COMBO Endoscopy Oropharyngeal Airway in Sedated Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography for Patients","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Age ≥18 years；\n* The ASA classification ranges from I to III.\n* Patients have signed the informed consent form.\n* Patients scheduled to undergo sedated ERCP examination;\n* The estimated duration of the procedure does not exceed 45 minutes.\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n1. Patients with coagulation disorders, tendency for oral\u002Fnasal bleeding, mucosal injury\u002Foccupying lesions, or difficult oropharyngeal airway insertion making airway management unfeasible;\n2. Severe cardiac dysfunction (\\\u003C4 METs);\n3. Severe renal insufficiency (requiring preoperative dialysis);\n4. Child-Pugh class C;\n5. Diagnosed chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) or other acute\u002Fchronic pulmonary diseases requiring long-term\u002Fintermittent oxygen therapy;\n6. Increased intracranial pressure;\n7. Upper respiratory tract infections (oral\u002Fnasal\u002Fpharyngeal);\n8. Fever (core temperature \\>37.5°C);\n9. Confirmed pregnancy or current breastfeeding;\n10. Allergy to sedatives (e.g., propofol) or medical adhesives;\n11. Emergency procedures;\n12. Multiple trauma injuries;\n13. Peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO2) levels below 95% while breathing room air preoperatively;\n14. BMI \\\u003C18.5 or \\>30 kg\u002Fm²;\n15. Current participation in other clinical trials;\n16. Other conditions deemed ineligible by investigators.",{"count":413,"type":22},[415],"Hypoxia represents the prevailing adverse occurrence during the sedation of patients undergoing Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) with propofol. A recent innovation in this domain is the COMBO Endoscopy Oropharyngeal Airway-a multifaceted device that encompasses capnography monitoring, bite block , oxygenation support, and oropharyngeal airway management. This device has been purposefully designed to cater to the unique requirements of endoscopic procedures. The principal objective of this study is to assess the efficacy of the COMBO Endoscopy Oropharyngeal Airway in reducing the incidence of hypoxia in patients undergoing ERCP under sedation.",[122,123,124,28],[419,441,420,421,126],"The COMBO Endoscopy Oropharyngeal Airway","2025-06-23",{"date":444,"type":37},"2025-06-24",{"date":426,"type":37},{"date":294,"type":22},{"name":138,"class":44},{"id":449,"slug":450,"hasResults":11,"nctId":451,"briefTitle":452,"officialTitle":453,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":454,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":17,"minAge":18,"maxAge":455,"enrollmentInfo":456,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":23,"phases":457,"briefSummary":458,"conditions":459,"keywords":460,"overallStatus":33,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":463,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":464,"startDateStruct":466,"completionDateStruct":468,"leadSponsor":470,"locationsCount":4},"100583228","comparison-of-three-ports-and-four-ports-laparoscopic-cholecystectomy-100583228","NCT06873594","Comparison of Three Ports and Four Ports Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy","Comparison of the Outcomes of Three Port and Four Port Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy in Patients Presenting to Tertiary Care Hospital: A Randomized Controlled Trial","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Patients diagnosed with cholelithiasis, scheduled for elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy\n* both genders\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* conversion to open cholecystectomy\n* patients requiring other bail-out procedures\n* lactating and pregnant women","60 Years",{"count":55,"type":22},[25],"Laparoscopic cholecystectomy is done traditionally with four ports. It has been observed that the same could be achieved using three ports. In this study we will study the outcomes of laparoscopic cholecystectomy done with both techniques.",[28,31],[461,462,31],"Three-port","Four-port","2025-03-11",{"date":465,"type":37},"2025-03-12",{"date":467,"type":22},"2025-07-01",{"date":469,"type":22},"2026-03-31",{"name":471,"class":44},"Khyber Medical College, Peshawar",{"id":473,"slug":474,"hasResults":11,"nctId":475,"briefTitle":476,"officialTitle":477,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":478,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":17,"minAge":479,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":480,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":23,"phases":482,"briefSummary":483,"conditions":484,"keywords":4,"overallStatus":157,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":485,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":486,"startDateStruct":488,"completionDateStruct":490,"leadSponsor":492,"locationsCount":45},"100581640","using-da-vinci-sp-system-for-patients-with-cholelithiasis-and-choledocholithiasis-100581640","NCT06852937","Using da Vinci SP System for Patients With Cholelithiasis and Choledocholithiasis","Pilot Study of Single-Port Robot-Assisted Surgery Using Da Vinci SP Surgical System for Patients With Complex Cholelithiasis and Choledocholithiasis","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n1. Age 20 years or more\n2. Symptomatic cholelithiasis with or without choledocholithiasis, symptomatic chronic cholecystitis with or without biliary tract injury or stricture\n3. Indication of cholecystectomy with or without common bile duct exploration and deemed feasible for robotic surgery\n4. Patient not feasible or have failed stone extraction or intervention for choledocholithiasis by endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography for patients with choledocholithiasis could be included\n5. ASA physical status classification 1-2 and adequate organ function\n6. Patients willing and able to comply with study protocol requirements and follow-up\n7. Patients who are taking anti-platelet or anti-coagulation medications are eligible for this trial, but the associated agents should be discontinued 5 days prior to the operation day. Patients who are taking Wafarin should be admitted two days earlier for bridging to Heparin. Other medications for underlying diseases can be taken as usual.\n8. With informed consent\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n1. Severe acute cholecystitis\n2. Suspected biliary tract cancer or untreated biliary tract cancer\n3. BMI ≥35 or BMI \\\u003C18.5\n4. Unable to tolerate robotic surgery position\n5. Severe adhesion due to prior abdominopelvic surgery\n6. Prior major upper abdominal surgery judged by the investigator as not feasible for robotic surgery\n7. Active infectious disease\n8. Severe concomitant illness that drastically shortens life expectancy or increases risk of therapeutic interventions, such as: severe heart disease (NYHA functional class III-IV) or severe lung disease (GOLD Group C-D)\n9. Cannot follow trial-required procedures\n10. Concomitant systemic or pelvic disease that increases the risk of surgery\n11. Patients with coagulopathy\n12. Emergency surgery","20 Years",{"count":481,"type":22},25,[25],"A prospective, interventional, single arm study to investigate clinical feasibility of single-stage cholecystectomy and common bile duct exploration using da Vinci SP Surgical System (robotic surgery)",[28,317],"2025-02-25",{"date":487,"type":37},"2025-02-28",{"date":489,"type":37},"2024-12-21",{"date":491,"type":22},"2026-12",{"name":493,"class":44},"National Taiwan University Hospital"]