Trial reportWiener klinische Wochenschrift2018
Advantages of laparoscopic common bile duct exploration in common bile duct stones.
Trial report in Wiener klinische Wochenschrift, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 2 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Minimally invasive surgical strategies for gallbladder stones with concomitant common bile duct stones: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.BMC surgery · 2026Pooled it
- EAES rapid guideline: updated systematic review, network meta-analysis, CINeMA and GRADE assessment, and evidence-informed European recommendations on the management of common bile duct stones.Surgical endoscopy · 2022Guideline
- Trial
- Application of laparoscopic backtracking full-thickness continuous everting suture for non-AOSC choledocholithiasis.BMC surgery · 2023Article
- Comparative analysis of laparoscopic choledocholithiasis and ERCP treatment after cholecystectomy.BMC surgery · 2023Article
- One-step laparoscopic cholecystectomy with common bile duct exploration and stone extraction versus two-step endoscopic retrograde cholangiography with stone extraction plus laparoscopic cholecystectomy for patients with common bile duct stones: a randomised feasibility and pilot clinical trial-the preGallStep trial.Pilot and feasibility studies · 2023Article
- 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 · 2023Article
- Advances in Risk Factors for Recurrence of Common Bile Duct Stones.International journal of medical sciences · 2021Review
- Single-stage treatment with ERCP and laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus two-stage treatment with ERCP followed by laparoscopic cholecystectomy within six to eight weeks: a retrospective study.Turkish journal of surgery · 2019Article
- Application of an internal drainage tube in laparoscopic common bile duct exploration.Medicine internationalArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the efficacy, safety, and surgical outcomes of laparoscopic common bile duct exploration, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, and open common bile duct exploration for treatment of common bile duct stones.
methodsIn total, 210 patients were prospectively randomized into 3 groups: laparoscopic common bile duct exploration, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, and open common bile duct exploration. The primary outcome measures were the common bile duct stone clearance rate and the complication rate. The secondary outcome measures were mortality, total costs, and length of hospital stay.
resultsThe success rates in the laparoscopic common bile duct exploration group (97.14%, 68 out of 70) and open common bile duct exploration group (98.57%, 69/70) were significantly higher than that in the endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography group (85.71%, 60/70, both p < 0.05). The complication rates in the laparoscopic common bile duct exploration group (2.86%, 2/70) and open common bile duct exploration group (1.43%, 1/70) were significantly lower than that in the endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography group (14.29%, 10/70, both p < 0.05). The success rate and complication rate were not significantly different between the laparoscopic common bile duct exploration group and open common bile duct exploration group (both p > 0.05).
conclusionLaparoscopic common bile duct exploration provides an alternative therapeutic approach that was safer and more reliable, allowed for earlier recovery, and provided more cost-effective treatment of common bile duct stones.
Indexed as
Identifiers
28762058What 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.