Trial reportScientific reports2017
The safety and feasibility of laparoscopic common bile duct exploration for treatment patients with previous abdominal surgery.
Trial report in Scientific reports, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Robotic Cholecystectomy and Common Bile Duct Exploration: Multidisciplinary Approach in a Complex Case of Choledocholithiasis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration on a patient with situs inversus totalis and previous biliary surgery: a case report.International journal of surgery case reports · 2026Article
- Transcystic management of choledocholithiasis: Outcomes, factors associated with bile duct injury and implications for surgical practice.Annals of hepato-biliary-pancreatic surgery · 2025Article
- Minimally Invasive Surgery in Acute Bowel Obstruction: Should It Become the Standard of Care? A Prospective, Single Center, Observational Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Surgical strategies for challenging common bile duct stones in the endoscopic era: A comprehensive review of current evidence.World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2024Review
- Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration with primary closure is preferred for selected elderly individuals with choledocholithiasis.Annals of gastroenterological surgery · 2023Article
- A Retrospective Study on the Three-Port Technique of Laparoscopic Common Bile Duct Exploration for the Management of Cholelithiasis and Choledocholithiasis.International journal of general medicine · 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
- Safety and efficacy of emergency laparoscopic common bile duct exploration in elderly patients with complicated acute cholangitis.Surgical endoscopy · 2020Article
- Serum Carbohydrate Antigen 199 as a Biomarker for Evaluating Patients with Choledocholithiasis.Gastroenterology research and practice · 2020Article
- Diagnostic value of elevated serum carbohydrate antigen 199 level in acute cholangitis secondary to choledocholithiasis.World journal of clinical cases · 2018Article
- Safety and feasibility of laparoscopic left hepatectomy for the treatment of hepatolithiasis in patients with previous abdominal surgery.Journal of minimal access surgeryArticle
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety and feasibility of laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) in patients with previous abdominal surgery (PAS). The outcomes were compared in 139 patients (103 upper and 36 lower abdominal surgeries) with PAS and 361 without PAS who underwent LCBDE. The operative time, hospital stay, rate of open conversion, postoperative complications, duct clearance, and blood loss were compared. Patients with PAS had longer operative times (P = 0.006), higher hospital costs (P = 0.043), and a higher incidence of wound complications (P = 0.011) than those without PAS. However, there were no statistically significant in the open conversion rate, blood loss, hospital stay, bile leakage, biliary strictures, residual stones, and mortality between patients with and without PAS (P > 0.05). Moreover, compared with those without PAS, patients with previous upper abdominal surgery (PUAS) had longer operative times (P = 0.005), higher hospital costs (P = 0.030), and a higher open conversion rate (P = 0.043), but patients with previous lower abdominal surgery (PLAS) had a higher incidence of wound complications (P = 0.022). LCBDE is considered safe and feasible for patients with PAS, including those with PUAS.
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.