ArticleHPB : the official journal of the International Hepato Pancreato Biliary Association2014
Management of choledocholithiasis in an emergency cohort undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a single-centre experience.
Article in HPB : the official journal of the International Hepato Pancreato Biliary Association, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Transcystic versus traditional laparoscopic common bile duct exploration: its advantages and a meta-analysis.Surgical endoscopy · 2018Pooled it
- Comparison of the efficacy of LTCBDE and LCBDE for common bile duct stones: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in surgery · 2024Article
- A meta-analysis of the use of intraoperative cholangiography; time to revisit our approach to cholecystectomy?Surgery open science · 2021Review
- Recurrent common bile duct stones as a late complication of endoscopic sphincterotomy.BMC gastroenterology · 2018Article
- Laparoscopic Transcystic Common Bile Duct Exploration: Advantages over Laparoscopic Choledochotomy.PloS oneArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionMinimally-invasive options for the management of choledocholithiasis in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy include laparoscopic and endoscopic approaches. This study reviews the effectiveness of both approaches in an emergency setting.
methodsA retrospective chart review was performed for a cohort of patients who underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Outcomes assessed were duct clearance, the number of procedures performed (NPP), length of stay (LOS) and complication rate.
resultsA total of 182 patients who underwent emergency laparoscopic cholecystectomies received intervention for choledocholithiasis. The duct clearance rate was lower in the laparoscopic group, 63% versus 86% (P = 0.001). However, the median NPP was also lesser in the laparoscopic group, 1 (interquartile range (IQR) 1-2) versus 2 (IQR 2-2) (P < 0.001), as was the median LOS, 5 days (IQR 3-8) versus 7 days (IQR 6-10) (P = 0.009). Forty-eight laparoscopic endobiliary stents were attempted; stent deployment was successful in 37 patients. A larger proportion of patients with laparoscopic endobiliary stents had duct clearance by endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) compared with those without, although this was not statistically significant (P = 0.208).
conclusionLaparoscopic clearance is not as effective as post-operative ERCP in an emergency cohort, but is associated with fewer procedures required and a shorter inpatient stay. Thus, laparoscopic clearance may still be an attractive option for surgeons especially where conditions are favourable during an emergency laparoscopic cholecystectomy.
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.