ArticleSurgical endoscopy2017
Reoperation for recurrent hepatolithiasis: laparotomy versus laparoscopy.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Application of left lateral hepatolithiasis classification in minimally invasive hepatectomy.Updates in surgery · 2026Article
- The effectiveness of two-step percutaneous transhepatic choledochoscopic lithotripsy for hepatolithiasis: a retrospective study.Updates in surgery · 2026Article
- Laparoscopic versus open secondary hepatectomy treating postoperative regional recurrent hepatolithiasis: a multicenter real-world study.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Article
- Correlation analysis and recurrence evaluation system for patients with recurrent hepatolithiasis: a multicentre retrospective study.Frontiers in digital health · 2024Article
- Surgical Management of Recurrence of Primary Intrahepatic Bile Duct Stones.Canadian journal of gastroenterology & hepatology · 2023Article
- The safety and feasibility of laparoscopic approach for the management of intrahepatic and extrahepatic bile duct stones in patients with prior biliary tract surgical interventions.Scientific reports · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLaparoscopy has been proposed for the management of recurrent hepatolithiasis, but no comparative study of its relative efficacy versus laparotomy has been performed, and the patient selection criteria for laparoscopy are not clear. This study aimed to investigate the therapeutic effect of laparoscopy versus laparotomy for repeated hepatolithiasis and to highlight how to select patients best suited for laparoscopy.
methodsWe performed a cohort study of 94 patients who underwent laparotomy or laparoscopy for recurrent hepatolithiasis between January 2010 and May 2014. The clinical data of 53 patients who underwent open biliary exploration (laparotomy group) and 41 patients who underwent laparoscopic biliary exploration (laparoscopy group) for recurrent hepatolithiasis were retrospectively analyzed and compared.
resultsIntestinal adhesions to the porta hepatis occurred in 62 (66%) patients. There was no difference in operating time between the two groups. In comparing the laparoscopic group versus the laparotomy group, the intraoperative blood loss was less (P = .001), the incidence of postoperative ascites (9.8 vs. 30.2%, P = .016) and/or pleural effusion (7.3 vs. 28.3%, P = .010) was lower, and the stone clearance rates were comparable. Wound morbidity appeared peculiarly in 15 (28.3%) patients among the laparotomy group. The postoperative hospital stay in the laparoscopy group was shorter than that in the laparotomy group (P = .000).
conclusionLaparoscopy is a safe and effective treatment for recurrent hepatolithiasis patients who are scheduled for bile duct exploration.
Indexed as
Identifiers
28643061What 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.