ClinicalTrials.gg
RecruitingNCT07453186Updated Jun 2, 2026

Transabdominal and Laparoscopic Ultrasound in a Bariatric Setting

An interventional study of Diagnostic procedures in Gallstone Disease, Ultrasonic Diagnosis and Bariatric Patients Undergoing Bariatric Surgery, sponsored by Esbjerg Hospital - University Hospital of Southern Denmark. Recruiting at 1 site in Denmark. Open to participants aged 18 Years and older, including healthy volunteers. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2026-06-02.

Sponsored by Esbjerg Hospital - University Hospital of Southern Denmark · Not applicable, Interventional, and Diagnostic

From the registry’s dates

  • Started Apr 2026; still recruiting 7 months later.
Phase
Not applicable
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
130
Allocation
Not applicable
Ages
18 Years and older
Sex
All
01

Study summary

Every year, many patients undergo weight-loss (bariatric) surgery. While this surgery leads to significant and intended weight loss, it also increases the risk of developing gallstones or other gallbladder problems.

Approximately one in five patients later requires a second operation to remove the gallbladder. This type of surgery carries a higher risk of complications and reoperations compared with gallbladder surgery performed in the general population.

Preventive treatment may help reduce this risk. One option is medical treatment with Ursochol, which has been shown to lower the risk of developing gallstones after bariatric surgery. However, this treatment is only effective in patients who have not already developed gallstones before surgery.

This means patients need a reliable preoperative ultrasound examination of the gallbladder. Unfortunately, performing ultrasound can be technically challenging in patients with obesity, making it harder to detect small stones or other abnormalities.

The goal is therefore to improve the examination of the gallbladder in patients undergoing bariatric surgery in order to better identify who may benefit from preventive treatment.

The study

The investigators are comparing two types of ultrasound examination of the gallbladder:

  • Standard ultrasound performed on the outside of the abdomen using a handheld probe.
  • Laparoscopic ultrasound performed during bariatric surgery using a small ultrasound probe placed inside the abdomen, typically placed on the liver near the gallbladder.

It is of interest to find out whether the ultrasound performed during surgery finds more:

  • Gallstones
  • Sludge
  • Small stones (microlithiasis)
  • Thickening of the gallbladder wall

By improving detection, the investigators aim to better guide preventive treatment and reduce the need for future gallbladder surgery.

Read the detailed description
  1. TITLE Transabdominal and Laparoscopic Ultrasound in a Bariatric Setting
  2. BACKGROUND AND RATIONALE

    2.1 Clinical Background Bariatric surgery is an established and effective treatment for severe obesity. In Denmark, approximately 2,000 bariatric procedures are performed annually. These procedures result in significant and intended weight loss and improvement in metabolic comorbidities. However, rapid weight loss is associated with an increased risk of gallstone formation.

    Gallstone disease is one of the most common postoperative complications following bariatric surgery. Approximately 10% of patients undergo cholecystectomy within two years after surgery, increasing to up to 20% within ten years. Importantly, cholecystectomy in patients who previously underwent bariatric surgery is associated with:

    • Increased risk of surgical complications
    • Higher rates of reoperation
    • More technically complex procedures
    • Increased risk of bile duct injury In patients with Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, management of biliary tract disease is particularly challenging due to altered gastrointestinal anatomy, which complicates endoscopic access (e.g., ERCP).

    2.2 Preventive Treatment and Diagnostic Challenge Prophylactic treatment with ursodeoxycholic acid (Ursochol) has been shown to significantly reduce the risk of symptomatic gallstone disease in the first two years after bariatric surgery.

    However:

    • Ursochol is only effective in patients who do not already have gallstones.
    • Therefore, accurate preoperative detection of gallstones is essential.

    Conventional transabdominal ultrasound (TAUS) is the standard imaging modality for gallbladder evaluation. However, in patients with severe obesity:

    • Ultrasound penetration is limited
    • Image quality may be reduced
    • Small stones and sludge may be overlooked
    • Sensitivity may be as low as 62-68%

    Thus, diagnostic uncertainty may lead to:

    • Under-treatment (missed stones)
    • Over-treatment (inappropriate prophylaxis)
    • Inconsistent national implementation

    2.3 Rationale for Laparoscopic Ultrasound (LUS)

    Laparoscopic ultrasound (LUS) allows:

    • Direct placement of the probe on the liver surface
    • Shorter acoustic distance
    • Higher image resolution
    • Potentially improved detection of subtle pathology
    • Fewer hospital visits for the patients prior to surgery

    Only one prior study has directly compared TAUS and LUS in this population. That study suggested higher overall pathology detection with LUS, but lacked:

    • Histological confirmation
    • Sample size justification
    • Assessment of microlithiasis
    • Gallbladder wall measurements
    • Formal evaluation of interobserver agreement within each ultrasound modality

    Therefore, a well-designed prospective paired diagnostic study is warranted.

  3. OBJECTIVES

3.1 Primary Objective To compare the diagnostic detection rate of gallbladder pathology between transabdominal ultrasound (TAUS) and laparoscopic ultrasound (LUS) in patients undergoing bariatric surgery.

3.2 Secondary Objectives

  1. To evaluate interobserver agreement within TAUS and LUS examinations
  2. To compare examination time between modalities
  3. To assess image quality
  4. HYPOTHESES

1. Laparoscopic ultrasound detects significantly more gallbladder pathology than transabdominal ultrasound.

2. LUS has lower interobserver variability compared to TAUS.

5. STUDY DESIGN Prospective observational diagnostic comparative study with paired within-patient design.

Each participant undergoes:

  • Two independent TAUS examinations
  • Two independent LUS examinations

All examinations are performed blinded and independently.

No randomization is performed.

No experimental interventions are introduced.

6. STUDY PROCEDURES

6.1 Preoperative Phase

Participants undergo:

  • Two transabdominal ultrasounds
  • Performed on the same day
  • By two independent radiologists/sonographers
  • Blinded to each other's findings

6.2 Intraoperative Phase

During planned bariatric surgery:

  • Two surgeons independently perform laparoscopic ultrasound
  • Probe placed directly on liver surface
  • Examinations blinded
  • Adds 5-10 minutes to procedure

    7. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS PLAN

7.1 Primary Analysis McNemar's test for paired binary outcomes.

Significance level: 0.05 (one-sided)

Power: 90%

7.2 Sample Size Calculation Sample size was calculated for a paired binary comparison of the composite gallbladder pathology outcome between transabdominal ultrasound (TAUS) and laparoscopic ultrasound (LUS) using a one-sided McNemar test (α=0.05, power=90%). The sample size was calculated in two ways. Under one model, we assumed the detection rates of 25% for TAUS and 35% for LUS with an estimated between-modality correlation of 0.70. In the second model, we assumed discordant proportions of 0.10 (TAUSnegative / LUSpositive) and 0.01 (TAUSpositive / LUSnegative). Approximately in both models, the required sample size was 117 evaluable paired patients; allowing for 10% dropout/non-evaluable cases, we will enroll 130 patients in total.

7.3 Secondary Analyses • Interobserver agreement: Cohen's kappa

  • Subgroup analyses (BMI strata, bariatric surgery)

All analyses conducted in STATA.

8. ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS

8.1 Risk Assessment Both TAUS and LUS examinations are well known diagnostic modalities without any known risk profile. The LUS procedure will add 5-10 minutes of additional surgery, which seems reasonable.

Overall, the risk of the examinations are considered minimal.

8.2 Potential Benefits • Improved diagnostic precision

  • Better patient selection for preventive treatment
  • Reduced need for future gallbladder surgery
  • Simpler ultrasound examinations

    9. DATA MANAGEMENT

  • Data stored in secure SharePoint research environment and REDCap Systems
  • GDPR compliant
  • Restricted access
  • Registered internally at hospital

    10. DISSEMINATION

Results will be:

  • Published regardless of outcome
  • Submitted to peer-reviewed journals

11. FUNDING

  • Part of a PhD program
  • No funding from private companies
  • Additional funding sought from regional and national foundations

12. EXPECTED IMPACT

If LUS demonstrates superior diagnostic performance:

  • It may guide selective prophylactic therapy
  • It may reduce long-term gallbladder morbidity
  • It may standardize diagnostic workup

This study has direct translational relevance to clinical practice.

02

Conditions studied

  • Gallstone Disease
  • Ultrasonic Diagnosis
  • Bariatric Patients Undergoing Bariatric Surgery

Keywords

  • Bariatric surgery
  • Gallstone disease
  • Metabolic surgery
  • Biliary disease
  • Ultrasound
  • Laparoscopic ultrasound
03

In context

Cholelithiasis

189 studies on the registry are indexed under Cholelithiasis; 42 are open to participants now.

This study's planned enrollment of 130 is above the median of 90 across 135 interventional studies indexed under Cholelithiasis.

Browse Cholelithiasis studies →

Lead sponsor

Esbjerg Hospital - University Hospital of Southern Denmark is the lead sponsor of 50 studies on the registry; 15 are open to participants now.

Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
18 Years and older
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
Yes

Go through the criteria one by one — yes, no or not sure — and take the list to your doctor or the study team. Kept in this browser only.

Inclusion criteria

  • Age ≥18 years
  • Scheduled for bariatric surgery
  • Able to provide

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Previous cholecystectomy
  • Previous biliary surgery
  • Previous liver surgery
  • Inability to provide
Terms in these criteria, in plain language(1)

Underlined terms in the criteria open these too. Explained by clinicaltrials.gg, not part of the registry record. The study team decides who can take part.

Informed consent

Before you join, the study team explains what taking part involves — its purpose, what happens, the risks and possible benefits — and answers your questions, so you can decide freely. Consent is usually recorded on a form (the informed consent form, ICF) signed by you or, where the law allows, by someone legally authorised to decide for you.

You can keep asking questions during the study, you are told of new information that matters, and you can choose to leave at any time.

05

Study design

Phase
Not applicable
Primary purpose
Diagnostic
Allocation
Not applicable
Intervention model
Single group
Masking
None (open label)
Enrollment
130 participants (estimated)

Study arms

  • Other
    Ultrasound examination

    Diagnostic Test: Diagnostic procedures

Interventions

  • Diagnostic testDiagnostic procedures

    In the same patients, we will do both transabdominal and laparoscopic ultrasound

    Also known as: Transabdominal ultrasound, Laparoscopic ultrasound

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Gallbladder pathology (yes / no)

    Composite endpoint consisting of gallstones (yes/no), slugde (yes/no), micro- lithiasis (yes/no), diffuse gallbladder wall thickness over 3 mm (yes/no).

    Time frame: From preoperative ultrasound (within 31 days before surgery) to laparoscopic ultrasound during bariatric surgery

Secondary outcomes

  1. Interobserver variability

    Interobserver agreement (Cohen's kappa)

    Time frame: From preoperative ultrasound (within 31 days before surgery) to laparoscopic ultrasound during bariatric surgery

07

Study locations

1 of 1 sites recruiting
08

References and documents

Individual participant data

Plan to share: No — Individual participant data will not be shared due to national data protection regulations and institutional restrictions.

No publications or documents are linked to this record.

09

Timeline

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
ElapsedEstimatedEstimated, not yet reachedSimilar studies: half by the dot; the band is the middle halfHalf of similar studies reached it by the dot; the band is the middle half, from a quarter to three quarters

Started Apr 2026 (actual). Primary completion is estimated for Jun 2028, 26 months after the start.

Of 54 non-industry interventional studies with no phase under Cholelithiasis, half reached primary completion within 17 months of starting (the median), counting those still running; a quarter within 6 and three quarters within 27. This study's planned 26 months is above that.

Counting every sponsor, half of 58 studies reached it within 15 months; a quarter within 6 and three quarters within 24.

How these figures are worked out, and which studies are left out of them.

Registered
Feb 25, 2026
First posted
Mar 5, 2026
StartActual
Apr 1, 2026
Primary completionEst.
Jun 1, 2028
CompletionEst.
Mar 1, 2029
Last update
Jun 2, 2026
What these dates mean
Start.
When the first participant enrolled; while estimated, when the study expects to open to recruitment.
Primary completion.
When the last participant was examined or treated to collect data for the study's main question, its primary outcome. A study that stopped early gives the date its data collection stopped.
Completion.
When the last participant's last visit took place, for every outcome, secondary ones and side effects included: the end of the study. Often later than primary completion, sometimes the same day.
Actual and Est.
Actual means the registry says the date has happened. Est. (estimated) is a date the sponsor plans or expects. It can still move, and the sponsor is expected to change it to actual once it has passed.
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on Jun 2, 2026, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
10

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT07453186
Lead sponsor
Esbjerg Hospital - University Hospital of Southern Denmark
Responsible party
Benjamin Drejer Petersen (Principal Investigator, Esbjerg Hospital - University Hospital of Southern Denmark) — Principal investigator
First posted
Mar 5, 2026
Start date
Apr 1, 2026
Primary completion
Jun 1, 2028 (estimated)
Completion
Mar 1, 2029 (estimated)
Last update
Jun 2, 2026

Study contacts

Benjamin Petersen, M.D.
Contact
benjamin.drejer.petersen@rsyd.dk
+45 79 18 57 14

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
No
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Interested in this study?

Eligibility is decided by the study team. Share this record with your doctor or contact the team directly.

Contact study team

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion