Trial reportSurgical endoscopy2013
Kumar versus Olsen cannulation technique for intraoperative cholangiography: a randomized trial.
Trial report in Surgical endoscopy, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Transcystic or transductal stone extraction during single-stage treatment of choledochocystolithiasis: a systematic review.World journal of surgery · 2014Pooled it
- Article
- The Impact of Intraoperative Glucagon on the Diagnostic Accuracy of Intraoperative Cholangiogram for the Diagnosis of Choledocholithiasis: Experience from a Large Tertiary Care Center.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- SAGES clinical spotlight review: intraoperative cholangiography.Surgical endoscopy · 2017Article
- Management of suspected common bile duct stones on cholangiogram during same-stay cholecystectomy for acute gallstone-related disease.BMC surgery · 2017Article
- Hitching the gallbladder in laparoscopic-assisted cholecysto-cholangiography: a simple technique.Pediatric surgery international · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere is resistance to routine intraoperative cholangiography (IOC) during cholecystectomy because it prolongs surgery and may be experienced as cumbersome. An alternative instrument may help to reduce these drawbacks and lower the threshold for IOC. This trial compared the Kumar cannulation technique to the more commonly used Olsen clamp for IOC (KOALA trial; Dutch Trial Register NTR2582).
methodsPatients undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy were randomized between IOC using the Kumar clamp and the Olsen clamp. Primary end points were the time that the IOC procedure took and its perceived ease as measured on a visual analog scale from 0 (impossible) to 10 (effortless). To detect a difference of 33 % in IOC time, a total sample size of 40 patients was required.
resultsFifty-nine patients were randomized. Nine were excluded because of conversion to open cholecystectomy before the IOC procedure. Twenty-eight patients underwent IOC with the Kumar clamp and 22 with the Olsen clamp. The success rate was 23 (82.1 %) of 28 for the Kumar clamp and 19 (86.4 %) of 22 for the Olsen clamp (p > 0.999). The mean IOC time was 10 min 27 s ± 6 min 17 s using the Kumar clamp and 11 min 34 s ± 7 min 27 s using the Olsen clamp (p = 0.537). Surgeons graded the ease of the Kumar clamp as 6.8 ± 2.7 and the Olsen clamp as 6.8 ± 2.1 (p = 0.977).
conclusionsIOC using the Kumar clamp was neither faster nor easier than using the Olsen clamp. Both clamps facilitated IOC in just over 10 min. Individual surgeon preference should dictate which clamp is used.
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.