ArticleLangenbeck's archives of surgery2016
Routine ultrasound and blood tests after laparoscopic cholecystectomy-are they worthwhile? A diagnostic accuracy study.
Article in Langenbeck's archives of surgery, 2016. 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Are We Overtesting? Rethinking Routine Blood Work After Low-Risk Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: A Retrospective Study.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Article
- Value and relevance of routine postoperative blood sample analysis after general surgery-a single centre analysis of 1198 patients.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeDelayed recognition of complications can have life-threatening sequelae and is a leading cause of medical litigation. Minimal evidence exists for benefits of postoperative surveillance. This study investigated whether ultrasound (US) and blood tests can detect complications after laparoscopic cholecystectomy.
methodsA series of 772 laparoscopic cholecystectomies performed between February 2008 and October 2009 was retrospectively analyzed. Routine US was performed within 6 h postoperatively, and a blood sample was taken at the second postoperative day.
resultsPostoperative US was performed in 722 patients. Fluid accumulation was documented in 104 patients; only two of these patients had clinically significant findings requiring treatment. The best predictor of infectious complications was elevated postoperative C-reactive protein (≥123 mg/L), with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.94 and a number needed to misdiagnose (NNM) of 8.7. To predict postoperative choledocholithiasis, a combination of total bilirubin, aspartate aminotransferase and alkaline phosphatase elevations, with cutoff values of 1.3 mg/dL, 37 IU/L, and 136 IU/L, respectively, attained the highest accuracy with a NNM of 29.5. Ultrasonographic detection of bile duct dilation further improved specificity, while lowering sensitivity.
conclusionsThe value of early routine postoperative US is low, unless there is clinical suspicion of complications. Routine blood tests have a high sensitivity for infectious complications and a high specificity for remnant biliary duct stones. Therefore, we recommend avoiding routine US postoperatively and performing routine postoperative blood tests. We also recommend facilitating easy access to postoperative US, as it can aid the decision to take therapeutic measures in symptomatic patients.
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.