Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27668730›Full record

ArticlePloS one

Laparoscopic Transcystic Common Bile Duct Exploration: Advantages over Laparoscopic Choledochotomy.

Qian Feng, Yong Huang, Kai Wang, Rongfa Yuan, Xiaoli Xiong, Linquan Wu

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

26 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. T-Tube Use After Laparoscopic Common Bile Duct Exploration.JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons
    Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Laparoscopic Transcystic Common Bile Duct Exploration: 8-Year Experience at a Single Institution.Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2023
    Article
  15. Association of Laparoscopic Methods and Clinical Outcomes of Cholecystolithiasis Plus Choledocholithiasis: A Cohort Study.The Turkish journal of gastroenterology : the official journal of Turkish Society of Gastroenterology · 2023
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Qian FengDepartment of General Surgery, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, Nanchang, 330006, China.
Yong HuangDepartment of General Surgery, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, Nanchang, 330006, China.
Kai WangDepartment of General Surgery, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, Nanchang, 330006, China.
Rongfa YuanDepartment of General Surgery, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, Nanchang, 330006, China.
Xiaoli XiongDepartment of Radiology, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, Nanchang, 330006, China.
Linquan WuDepartment of General Surgery, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, Nanchang, 330006, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe ideal treatment for choledocholithiasis should be simple, readily available, reliable, minimally invasive and cost-effective for patients. We performed this study to compare the benefits and drawbacks of different laparoscopic approaches (transcystic and choledochotomy) for removal of common bile duct stones.

methodsA systematic search was implemented for relevant literature using Cochrane, PubMed, Ovid Medline, EMBASE and Wanfang databases. Both the fixed-effects and random-effects models were used to calculate the odds ratio (OR) or the mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) for this study.

resultsThe meta-analysis included 18 trials involving 2,782 patients. There were no statistically significant differences between laparoscopic choledochotomy for common bile duct exploration (LCCBDE) (n = 1,222) and laparoscopic transcystic common bile duct exploration (LTCBDE) (n = 1,560) regarding stone clearance (OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.50-1.07; P = 0.11), conversion to other procedures (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.21-1.79; P = 0.38), total morbidity (OR 1.65, 95% CI 0.92-2.96; P = 0.09), operative time (MD 12.34, 95% CI -0.10-24.78; P = 0.05), and blood loss (MD 1.95, 95% CI -9.56-13.46; P = 0.74). However, the LTCBDE group showed significantly better results for biliary morbidity (OR 4.25, 95% CI 2.30-7.85; P<0.001), hospital stay (MD 2.52, 95% CI 1.29-3.75; P<0.001), and hospital expenses (MD 0.30, 95% CI 0.23-0.37; P<0.001) than the LCCBDE group.

conclusionsLTCBDE is safer than LCCBDE, and is the ideal treatment for common bile duct stones.

Identifiers

PMID27668730
PMCPMC5036868

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.