ArticleSurgical endoscopy2018
Risk factors and consequences of conversion to open surgery in laparoscopic common bile duct exploration.
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 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration versus intraoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in patients with gallbladder and common bile duct stones: a meta-analysis.Surgical endoscopy · 2021Pooled it
- A nomogram to predict conversion of laparoscopic surgery to laparotomy for Choledocholithiasis.BMC surgery · 2023Trial
- Risk factors for bile leakage following laparoscopic cyst excision and hepaticojejunostomy in pediatric choledochal cysts: a retrospective case-control study.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- National trends in utilization and readmission following intraoperative cholangiography in gallstone pancreatitis.Surgery open science · 2025Article
- Global research trends in surgical management of choledochal cysts: a bibliometric analysis from 2000 to 2024.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Giant Primary Choledocholithiasis: A Rare Case Report and Comprehensive Review of Literature.Clinical case reports · 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
- Safety and efficacy of laparoscopic common bile duct exploration for the patients with difficult biliary stones: 8 years of experiences at a single institution and literature review.Surgical endoscopy · 2022Review
- Outcomes of Laparoscopic Common Bile Duct Exploration by Chopstick Technique in Choledocholithiasis.JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic SurgeonsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAlthough laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) has shown many obvious advantages compared with open surgery in the treatment of common bile duct (CBD) stones, it remains unclear regarding risk factors of conversion from LCBDE to open surgery and whether conversion will counteract the advantages of LCBDE. The purpose of this study was to explore risk factors and consequences of conversion from LCBDE to open surgery.
methodsA retrospective study was conducted, using a database of 644 patients with LCBDE between 2011 and 2017. Risk factors for conversion to open surgery were determined based on univariable and multivariable analysis. The consequences of conversion to open surgery in LCBDE were analyzed.
resultsConversion was required in 27 (4.2%) of 644 patients undergoing LCBDE. Independent risk factors for conversion were as follows: the max diameter of stones in CBD (odds ratio (OR) 2.234, 95%CI 1.031-4.842; p = 0.042), edema of CBD (OR 12.530, 95%CI 4.633-33.887; p < 0.001), and multiple stones in CBD (OR 3.438, 95%CI: 1.133-10.428; p = 0.029). These risk factors and their combined were good predictors for conversion in LCBDE. More blood loss, longer operative time, longer postoperative hospital stay, and higher incision infection were identified in patients with conversion than those without conversion. However, no significant differences were observed regarding mortality, readmission within 30 days, reoperation, bile leakage, and intra-abdominal fluid collection.
conclusionConversion to open surgery in LCBDE was associated with acute edematous CBD with large and multiple stones. Conversion can offset the advantages of LCBDE.
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.