ArticleSurgical endoscopy2018
Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration in patients with previous upper abdominal surgery.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration for elderly patients with choledocholithiasis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Surgical endoscopy · 2020Pooled it
- Clinical application of indocyanine green fluorescence navigation technique in laparoscopic common bile duct exploration for complex hepatolithiasis.BMC surgery · 2024Trial
- Outcomes of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy in patients with a history of major upper abdominal surgery.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Article
- Review
- Comparison of the efficacy of LTCBDE and LCBDE for common bile duct stones: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in surgery · 2024Article
- Laparoscopic anatomical left hemihepatectomy guided by middle hepatic vein in the treatment of left hepatolithiasis with a history of upper abdominal surgery.Surgical endoscopy · 2023Article
- Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration following prior gastrectomy: surgical safety and feasibility.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2023Article
- One-stage versus two-stage management for acute cholecystitis associated with common bile duct stones: a retrospective cohort study.Surgical endoscopy · 2022Article
- Laparoscopic surgery for gallstones or common bile duct stones: A stably safe and feasible surgical strategy for patients with a history of upper abdominal surgery.Frontiers in surgery · 2022Article
- Laparoscopic transcystic common bile duct exploration as treatment for choledocholithiasis after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass.Surgical endoscopy · 2021Article
- Lessons learnt from the first 200 unselected consecutive cases of laparoscopic exploration of common bile duct stones at a district general hospital.Surgical endoscopy · 2021Review
- Laparoscopic Distal Pancreatectomy Following Prior Upper Abdominal Surgery (Pancreatectomy and Prior Surgery).Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2021Article
- 3D laparoscopic common bile duct exploration versus 2D in choledocholithiasis patients: a propensity score analysis.Surgical endoscopy · 2021Article
- Safety and efficacy of emergency laparoscopic common bile duct exploration in elderly patients with complicated acute cholangitis.Surgical endoscopy · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAlthough patients with previous upper abdominal surgery are no longer considered as a contraindication in laparoscopic surgery, laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) for these patients is still controversial. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of LCBDE for patients with previous upper abdominal surgery.
methodsTwo hundred and seventeen patients with common bile duct stones who underwent LCBDE in our institution from January 2010 to September 2017 were enrolled in the retrospective study. They were divided into two groups: group A, with previous upper abdominal surgery (n = 50) and group B, without previous upper abdominal surgery (n = 167). Patients' demographic, intraoperative, and postoperative outcomes were retrospectively analyzed.
resultsGroup A exhibited a longer operative time compared to group B (179.7 ± 61.5 vs. 156.0 ± 46.8 min, p = 0.014). There was no significant difference in intraoperative blood loss (123.9 ± 99.5 vs. 99.5 ± 84.7 mL, p = 0.087), postoperative hospital stay (7.4 ± 2.6 vs. 6.8 ± 2.3 d, p = 0.193), and overall complication rate (8.0 vs. 5.4%, p = 0.732) between the two groups. There was no mortality in both groups. The initial stone clearance rate showed no significant difference between the two groups (98.0 vs. 98.2%, p = 1.000), and the final stone clearance rate was 100% in both groups (p = 1.000). The stone recurrence rate had no significant difference between the two groups (2.0 vs. 2.4%, p = 1.000). The conversion rate was comparable between group A and group B (6.0 vs. 4.8%, p = 0.718).
conclusionsLCBDE is a safe and feasible procedure for patients with previous upper abdominal surgery. The keys of this procedure are carefully separating the adhesions and clearly exposing the common bile duct, and using a variety of methods to remove the stones.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29869082What 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.