Evidence map›Paper›PMID 12958681›Full record

ReviewSurgical endoscopy2003

Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration.

J B Petelin

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Surgical endoscopy, 2003. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 98 papers, 11 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
98citing papers in PubMed, 11 pooled it
5.3field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

98 citing papers in PubMed, 11 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 278 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Association Between Juxtapapillary Duodenal Diverticula and Risk of Choledocholithiasis: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2018
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Guideline
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Single-stage vs. two-stage management for concomitant gallstones and common bile duct stones: a prospective randomized trial with long-term follow-up.Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2014
    Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Intraoperative Cholangiogram Interpretation for Laparoscopic Transcystic Bile Duct Exploration: Is Concurrence Possible?Annals of surgery open : perspectives of surgical history, education, and clinical approaches · 2025
    Article
  20. Article

38 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

J B PetelinDepartment of Surgery, University of Kansas School of Medicine, Kansas City, KS 66104, USA. j2pete@mindspring.com
University of Kansas · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHerein I describe my >12-year experience with laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE).

methodsFrom 21 September 1989 through 31 December 2001, 3,580 patients presented with symptomatic biliary tract disease. Laparoscopic cholecystecomy (LC) was attempted in 3,544 of them (99.1%) and completed in 3,527 (99.5%). Laparoscopic cholangiograms (IOC) were performed in 3,417 patients (96.4%); in 344 cases (9.7%), the IOC was abnormal. Forty-nine patients (1.4%) underwent preoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), and 33 patients (0.9%) underwent postoperative ERCP. LCBDE was attempted in 326 cases and completed in 321 (98.5%). It was successful in clearing the duct in 317 of the 344 patients with abnormal cholangiograms (92.2%).

resultsThe mean operating time for all patients undergoing LC with or without cholangiograms or LCBDE or other additional surgery was 56.9 min. Mean length of stay was 22.1 h. The mean operating time for LC only patients ( n = 2530)--that is, those not undergoing LCBDE or any other additional procedure--was 47.6 min; their mean postoperative length of stay was 17.2 h. Ductal exploration was performed via the cystic duct in 269 patients, (82.5%) and through a choledochotomy in 57 patients (17.5%). T-tubes were used in patients in whom there was concern for possible retained debris or stones, distal spasm, pancreatitis, or general poor tissue quality secondary to malnutrition or infection. In cases where choledochotomy was used, a T-tube was placed in 38 patients (67%), and primary closure without a T-tube was done in 19 (33%). There were no complications in the group of patients who underwent choledochotomy and primary ductal closure without T-tube placement or in the group in whom T-tubes were placed.

conclusionsCommon bile duct (CBD) stones still occur in 10% of patients. These stones are identified by IOC. IOC can be performed in >96.4% of cases of LC. LCBDE was successful in clearing these stones in 97.2% of patients in whom it was attempted and in 92.2% of all patients with normal IOCs. Most LCBDEs in this series were performed via the cystic duct because of the stone characteristics and ductal anatomy. Selective laparoscopic placement of T-tubes in patients requiring choledochotomy (67%) appears to be a safe and effective alternative to routine T-tube drainage of the ductal system. ERCP, which was required for 5.8% of patients with abnormal cholangiograms, and open CBDE, which was used in 2.0%, still play an important role in the management of common bile duct pathology. The role of ERCP, with or without sphincterotomy, has returned to its status in the prelaparoscopic era. LCBDE may be employed successfully in the vast majority of patients harboring CBD stones.

Indexed as

CatheterizationCholangiographyCholangiopancreatography, Endoscopic RetrogradeCholecystectomy, LaparoscopicCholedocholithiasisCommon Bile DuctFluoroscopyHumansIntraoperative CareLaparoscopyPostoperative ComplicationsRetrospective StudiesTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID12958681
OpenAlexW2104809020

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.