ArticleDer Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen2012
[Laparoscopic versus endoscopic primary management of choledocholithiasis. A retrospective case-control study].
Article in Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Synchronous vs sequential laparoscopic cholecystectomy for cholecystocholedocholithiasis.World journal of gastroenterology · 2013Article
- Efficacy analysis of hybrid operating room-based laparoscopic cholecystectomy combined with intraoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in the treatment of cholelithiasis combined with choledocholithiasis - A case-control study.Journal of minimal access surgeryArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aim was to present the long-term results of one-stage laparoscopic procedure for the management of common bile duct (CBD) lithiasis in comparison with the primary endoscopic approach via ERCP. PATIENTS AND
methodsA retrospective case-control study was performed to determine the outcome of patients treated for CBD lithiasis (04/1997 - 11/2011). Data of patients with choledocholithiasis undergoing the two treatment modalities - laparoscopic common bile duct exploration plus laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LCBDE + LC, group A, n = 101) versus endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography/sphincterotomy and laparoscopic cholecystectomy (ERCP/S + LC, group B, n = 116) were matched according to their clinical characteristics. Patients of group A underwent either laparoscopic choledochotomy or transcystic exploration. The policy was to convert to open choledochotomy only after the sequential application of the two treatment modalities (laparoscopic/endoscopic procedure) had failed.
resultsNo significant difference in morbidity was found between the groups (group A 8% versus group B 11.2%). Conversion to another procedure was mandatory in 12 out of 101 and 17 out of 116 patients of groups A and B, respectively. The mean follow-up period was 7.8 years (range 1-12 years). Effective laparoscopic treatment of CBD stones (cholecystectomy and CBD clearance) was possible in 89 of the 101 patients in group A (88.1%) compared with 99 of the 116 patients in group B (85.4%) after the endoscopic approach.
conclusionsThis study showes that both - primary endoscopy and one-stage laparoscopic management of CBD lithiasis - are highly effective and safe with comparable results.
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.