ArticleScientific reports2015
Early versus delayed laparoscopic common bile duct exploration for common bile duct stone-related nonsevere acute cholangitis.
Article in Scientific reports, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- The safety and feasibility of laparoscopic common bile duct exploration for treatment patients with previous abdominal surgery.Scientific reports · 2017Trial
- Timing of intervention: Assessing earlyWorld journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2026Article
- Index admission vs elective laparoscopic common bile duct exploration: a district general hospital experience over 6 years.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2023Article
- Does delaying ureteral stent placement lead to higher rates of preoperative acute pyelonephritis during pregnancy?World journal of clinical cases · 2022Article
- Laparoscopic Common Bile Duct Exploration for Common Bile Duct Stones Complicated with Cholangitis in Patients with Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass-Clinical Experience from Three Cases.Obesity surgery · 2020Article
- Safety and efficacy of emergency laparoscopic common bile duct exploration in elderly patients with complicated acute cholangitis.Surgical endoscopy · 2020Article
- Clinical Efficacy Analysis of the Combination of the Laparoscope and Preoperative or Intraoperative Duodenoscope in the Treatment of Cholecystolithiasis with Choledocholithiasis: A Retrospective Study.Journal of laparoendoscopic & advanced surgical techniques. Part A · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
It is undetermined when and how laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) should be used in patients with common bile duct (CBD) stone-related nonsevere acute cholangitis. We aimed to evaluate the effect of LCBDE on the clinical outcome of those patients within (early) or beyond (delayed) 72 hours of emergent admission. Surgery-related complications, length of hospital stay (LOS), and total cost, as well as demographic and clinical parameters were compared between the two groups. Finally, 3 and 5 patients in early and delayed LCBDE group, respectively, had retained stones, which were removed by choledochoscopy before T-tube was removed. Each group had 3 patients who developed biliary leak, which was conservatively cured by the drainage. Shorter LOS and less total cost were observed in early group compared to the late one (13.34 ± 4.48 vs. 18.32 ± 9.13, p < 0.05; 17712 ± 5446.63 vs. 21776 ± 7230.41 ¥RMB, p < 0.05). Improvement of cholangitis was achieved in all patients with LCBDE. None of the patients developed stricture of the CBD after LCBDE. To conclude, both early and delayed LCBDE are safe and effective for the treatment of CBD stone-related nonsevere acute cholangitis during emergent admissions. Early LCBDE may be superior to delayed procedure due to the shorter LOS and less cost.
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.