ArticleSurgical endoscopy2020
Disparities in bile duct injury care.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Post-cholecystectomy Bile Duct Injury in Mexico: Prevention, Diagnosis, Management, and Healthcare System Challenges.Cureus · 2026Review
- Recent research progresses of bioengineered biliary stents.Materials today. Bio · 2024Review
- Actuarial Patency Rates of Hepatico-Jejunal Anastomosis after Repair of Bile Duct Injury at a Reference Center.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- Performance of the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement calculator for early postoperative outcomes following bile duct repair hepaticojejunostomy.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2021Article
- Factors associated with patency loss and actuarial patency rate following post-cholecystectomy bile duct injury repair: long-term follow-up.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAn international group proposed a standardized terminology to report outcomes after bile duct repair. Data on this surgical complication vary depending on the center and country where patients are treated. The aim of this work is to show disparities in the care process of bile duct injury between patients from two different income-level countries, using a standard terminology of outcomes and clinical reporting.
methodsA retrospective review comparing primary repair and re-repaired cases performed in an upper middle-income country (UMIC) versus primary repair cases treated in a high-income country (HIC) was performed. All pertinent data included in the tabular reporting system and outcomes classification were collected. Patients' characteristics were reported by calculating descriptive statistics.
resultsA total of 261 patients from UMIC (148 (56%) primary repair and 113 (44%) re-repair) were compared with 122 primary repair from HIC. Open cholecystectomy (55.4% vs 3.3%) and more E4 injuries (37.8% vs 19.7%) were found in the UMIC group. More Accordion 3 and higher complications were present in the UMIC primary and repair groups, as well as more episodes of postoperative acute cholangitis. Eleven patients were listed for liver transplant in the UMIC re-repair group. Primary patency by the end of the index treatment period was present in 217 (83%) of the full UMIC cohort. Median time to loss of primary patency was not reached in the primary repair, and was 3.8 years in the re-repair group. Patency was below HIC primary repaired cases.
conclusionsStandardized reporting outcomes after primary repair are applicable to re-repaired patients and are helpful to compare different populations, showing better outcomes in HIC. Measures of surgical access disparities exist among the process of bile duct injury care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31190224What 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.