Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31617103›Full record

ArticleSurgical endoscopy2020

Single-stage management of choledocholithiasis: intraoperative ERCP versus laparoscopic common bile duct exploration.

Victor Vakayil, Samuel T Klinker, Megan L Sulciner, Reema Mallick, Guru Trikudanathan, Stuart K Amateau, Helen T Davido, Martin Freeman, James V Harmon

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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 14 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Victor VakayilDepartment of Surgery, University of Minnesota, Mayo Mail Code 450, 420 Delaware St SE, Minneapolis, MN, 55455, USA. vvakayil@umn.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1178-2728
Samuel T KlinkerUniversity of Minnesota Medical School, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
Megan L SulcinerUniversity of Minnesota Medical School, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
Reema MallickDepartment of Surgery, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Guru TrikudanathanDivision of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
Stuart K AmateauDivision of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
Helen T DavidoDepartment of Surgery, New York University-Langone, Brooklyn, NY, USA.
Martin FreemanDivision of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
James V HarmonDepartment of Surgery, University of Minnesota, Mayo Mail Code 450, 420 Delaware St SE, Minneapolis, MN, 55455, USA.
University of Minnesota · USUniversity of Minnesota Medical Center · USNYU Langone Health · USUniversity of Pittsburgh · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLaparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is the criterion standard for treating patients with symptomatic gallstone disease; however, the optimal technique for extracting common bile duct stones remains unclear. Recent studies have noted improved outcomes with single-stage techniques, such as intraoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (iERCP) and laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE); however only few studies have directly compared those two single-stage techniques.

objectivesUsing the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP) database, we retrospectively analyzed the postoperative outcomes of all patients who underwent single-stage LC for choledocholithiasis from 2005 to 2017. Using Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes, as well as International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) and 10th Revision (ICD-10) codes, we stratified patients into two cohorts: those who underwent iERCP and LCBDE. Applying univariate techniques, we evaluated baseline characteristics and postoperative outcomes for both cohorts. Our primary outcomes of interest were 30-day morbidity and 30-day mortality; our secondary outcomes included rates of reoperation, readmission, operative time, and hospital length of stay.

resultsOf the 1814 single-stage LC patients during our 13-year study period, 1185 (65.3%) underwent LCBDE; 629 (34.6%) underwent iERCP. Our univariate analysis showed that the two cohorts were homogeneous in terms of baseline characteristics, including demographics, preoperative comorbidities, laboratory values, and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) scores. 30-day postoperative morbidity (including infectious and noninfectious complications) and overall mortality between groups were low and comparable. The mean operative time was slightly longer with LCBDE (125.1 ± 62.0 min) than iERCP (113.5 ± 65.2 min; P < 0.001), however the mean hospital length of stay, readmission rate, and reoperation rate were similar.

conclusionWe found that both iERCP and LCBDE resulted in low, comparable rates of morbidity and mortality. Centers with readily available endoscopic expertise might favor iERCP for its ease of access and shorter operative time. However, LCBDE remains an appropriate technique for patients with choledocholithiasis, especially when immediate endoscopic intervention is unavailable.

Indexed as

Cholangiopancreatography, Endoscopic RetrogradeCholecystectomy, LaparoscopicCholedocholithiasisCommon Bile DuctFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesSurvival AnalysisCholedocholithiasisIntraoperative ERCPLaparoscopic common bile duct explorationSingle-stage management

Identifiers

PMID31617103
OpenAlexW2980562900

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.