SynthesisSurgical endoscopy2018
Transcystic versus traditional laparoscopic common bile duct exploration: its advantages and a meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Surgical endoscopy, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 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
17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Laparoscopic Transcystic Versus Transductal Common Bile Duct Exploration: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.World journal of surgery · 2019Pooled it
- Step-by-step laparoscopic transcystic common bile duct exploration in choledocholithiasis: technical tips, special scenarios, lessons and results from over 100 cases.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Laparoscopic Transcystic Common Bile Duct Exploration for the Treatment of Choledocholithiasis Following Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass.Obesity surgery · 2026Article
- Transcystic management of choledocholithiasis: Outcomes, factors associated with bile duct injury and implications for surgical practice.Annals of hepato-biliary-pancreatic surgery · 2025Article
- Comparison of the efficacy of LTCBDE and LCBDE for common bile duct stones: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in surgery · 2024Article
- The "Basket-in-Catheter" technique: facilitating transcystic bile duct exploration and optimising the management of suspected ductal stones.Updates in surgery · 2023Article
- TAVAC: choledochoscopy disposable scopes, and the single-stage vs. two-stage approach to choledocholithiasis.Surgical endoscopy · 2023Article
- Leveraging access to technology and enhanced surgical technique (LATEST) in laparoscopic bile duct exploration (LBDE).Surgical endoscopy · 2023Article
- Is the use of fully covered metal stents effective in the treatment of difficult lithiasis of the common bile duct?Surgical endoscopy · 2022Article
- Optimal treatment for concomitant gallbladder stones with common bile duct stones and predictors for recurrence of common bile duct stones.Surgical endoscopy · 2022Article
- Analysis of Laparoscopic Ultrathin Choledochoscope Curative Effect on Common Bile Duct Exploration and Choledocholithotomy in 47 Cases.Frontiers in surgery · 2022Article
- The ABCdE score for PREdicting Lithotripsy Assistance during transcystic Bile duct Exploration by Laparoendoscopy (PRE-LABEL).Surgical endoscopy · 2021Article
- Porcine Aorto-Renal Artery (PARA) model for laparoscopic transcystic common bile duct exploration: the evolution of a training model to meet new clinical needs.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2021Article
- Transductal versus transcystic laparoscopic common bile duct exploration: an institutional review of over four hundred cases.Surgical endoscopy · 2021Article
- Choledocholithiasis-a new clinical pathway.Translational gastroenterology and hepatology · 2021Review
- Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration in patients with previous abdominal biliary tract operations.Surgical endoscopy · 2020Article
- Holmium laser lithotripsy improves the rate of successful transcystic laparoscopic common bile duct exploration.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2019Article
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
backgroundThe best approach for treating common bile duct stones remains a matter of debate. Traditional laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) can cause adverse events such as stenosis of the bile duct. Moreover, with advances in technology and surgical skills, the use of laparoscopic transcystic common bile duct exploration (LTCBDE) is gradually rising.
objectivesTo compare the safety, feasibility, and short-term clinical benefits of LTCBDE and LCBDE through matched cases.
methodsWeb of science, Cochrane, PubMed, and CNKI were searched systematically to identify studies published between January 2007 and December 2017 that compared LTCBDE and LCBDE without a restriction of languages. This meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.3.
resultsTwenty-one studies matched the selection criteria, including 1561 cases of LTCBDE and 1500 cases of LCBDE. There was no obvious difference in stone clearance (OR 1.44, 95% CI 0.84-2.47; P = 0.18). However, LTCBDE had a shorter operative time (MD - 17.72, 95% CI - 19.42 to - 16.02; P < 0.00001) and shorter hospital stay (MD - 2.20, 95% CI - 2.32 to - 2.08; P < 0.00001). Besides, the LTCBDE group showed significantly better results for blood loss (MD - 7.61, 95% CI - 8.85 to - 6.37; P < 0.00001) and postoperative complications (OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.19-0.41; P < 0.00001). In addition, LTCBDE was more cost efficient (MD - 2.51, 95% CI - 2.72 to - 2.30; P < 0.00001). Further, we calculated the absolute mean of operative time (LTCBDE:LCBDE = 97.56:117.81 min), hospital stay (LTCBDE:LCBDE = 5.22:8.91 days), hospital expenses (LTCBDE:LCBDE = 8646.121:11848.31 RMB), blood loss (LTCBDE:LCBDE = 29.3:52.0 ml), the rate of CBD stone clearance (LTCBDE:LCBDE = 92.8:95.0%), and postoperative complications (LTCBDE:LCBDE = 6.7:14.6%) in both groups to obtain more convincing results.
conclusionsThe stone clearance of LTCBDE was equal to that of LCBDE, and LTCBDE demonstrated a shorter operative time, lower blood loss, and other advantages. Thus, the surgical procedure of laparoscopic transcystic choledochotomy is feasible and safe.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29943056What 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.