ArticleSurgical endoscopy2016
Bile duct reconstruction following laparoscopic cholecystectomy in England.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 3 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- Risk factors and mitigating measures associated with bile duct injury during cholecystectomy: meta-analysis.BJS open · 2025Pooled it
- 2020 WSES guidelines for the detection and management of bile duct injury during cholecystectomy.World journal of emergency surgery : WJES · 2021Guideline
- Safe cholecystectomy multi-society practice guideline and state-of-the-art consensus conference on prevention of bile duct injury during cholecystectomy.Surgical endoscopy · 2020Guideline
- ChatGPT and other large language models in laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a multidimensional audit of reliability, quality, and readability.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Diminished Survival in Patients with Bile Leak and Ductal Injury: Management Strategy and Outcomes.Journal of the American College of Surgeons · 2018Article
- Acute Cholangitis After Bilioenteric Anastomosis for Bile Duct Injuries.Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2017Article
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 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo determine the incidence of bile duct reconstruction (BDR) following laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) and to identify associated risk factors.
backgroundMajor bile duct injury (BDI) requiring reconstruction is a serious complication of cholecystectomy.
methodsAll LC and attempted LC operations in England between April 2001 and March 2013 were identified. Patients with malignancy, a stone in bile duct or those who underwent bile duct exploration were excluded. This cohort of patients was followed for 1 year to identify those who underwent BDR as a surrogate marker for major BDI. Logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with the need for reconstruction.
resultsIn total, 572,223 LC and attempted LC were performed in England between April 2001 and March 2013. Five hundred (0.09 %) of these patients underwent BDR. The risk of BDR is lower in patient that do not have acute cholecystitis [odds ratio (OR) 0.48 (95 % CI 0.30-0.76)]. The regular use of on-table cholangiography (OTC) [OR 0.69 (0.54-0.88)] and high consultant caseload >80 LC/year [OR 0.56 (0.39-0.54)] reduced the risk of BDR. Patients who underwent BDR were 10 times more likely to die within a year than those who did not require further surgery (6 vs. 0.6 %).
conclusionsThe rate of BDR following laparoscopic cholecystectomy in England is low (0.09 %). The study suggests that OTC should be used more widely and provides further evidence in support of the provision of LC services by specialised teams with an adequate caseload (>80).
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.