ArticleWorld journal of gastroenterology2004
Biliary drainage after laparoscopic choledochotomy.
Article in World journal of gastroenterology, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 26 citations in OpenAlex.
- Systematic review with meta-analysis of studies comparing primary duct closure and T-tube drainage after laparoscopic common bile duct exploration for choledocholithiasis.Surgical endoscopy · 2016Pooled it
- T-Tube Use After Laparoscopic Common Bile Duct Exploration.JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic SurgeonsPooled it
- A randomized comparison of primary closure and T-tube drainage of the common bile duct after laparoscopic choledochotomy.Surgical endoscopy · 2008Trial
- A comparison of the therapeutic outcomes between primary duct closure and T-tube drainage after laparoscopic common bile duct exploration: a single-centre retrospective study.Wideochirurgia i inne techniki maloinwazyjne = Videosurgery and other miniinvasive techniques · 2023Article
- Index admission vs elective laparoscopic common bile duct exploration: a district general hospital experience over 6 years.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2023Article
- Spontaneously removed biliary stent drainage versus T-tube drainage after laparoscopic common bile duct exploration.Medicine · 2016Observational
- Ten-year experience on common bile duct exploration without T-tube insertion.Korean journal of hepato-biliary-pancreatic surgery · 2013Article
- Laparoscopic CBD Exploration.The Indian journal of surgery · 2010Article
- Why is there recurrence after transcystic laparoscopic bile duct clearance? Risk factor analysis.Surgical endoscopy · 2009Article
- Primary closure of choledochotomy after emergency laparoscopic common bile duct exploration.Surgical endoscopy · 2008Article
- Laparoscopic T-tube choledochotomy for biliary lithiasis.JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic SurgeonsReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTranscystic biliary decompression (TCBD) has been proposed as an alternative to T-tube placement after laparoscopic choledochotomy (LCD). This permits safe primary closure of the choledochotomy and eliminates the complications associated with T-tubes. TCBD tube has been secured by Roeder knots and transfixation, and removed later than 3 wk after surgery. We presented a modified TCBD (mTCBD) method after LCD using the ureteral catheter and the Lapro-Clip (David and Geck, Danbury, Connecticut, USA), and compared it with T-tube drainage.
methodsBetween October 2002 and June 2003, patients with choledocholithiasis undergoing LCD with mTCBD (mTCBD Group, n = 30) were retrospectively compared to those undergoing LCD with T-tube drainage (T-tube Group, n = 52) at a single institution.
resultsThere were no significant differences in operative time and retained stones between the two groups. Patients in mTCBD group had a significantly decreased average output of bile compared with those in T-tube group (306+/-141 vs 409+/-243 mL/24 h, P = 0.000). Removal of drain tubes in mTCBD group was done significantly earlier than that in T-tube group (median, 5 vs 29 d, P = 0.000). No complication related to drain tubes was found in mTCBD group, and morbidity rate with the T-tube was significantly higher (11.5%), and bile leakage following T-tube removal was 5.8%.
conclusionA modified TCBD after LCD is safe, effective and easy to perform. It may reduce postoperative complications, especially bile leakage.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.