ArticleMedical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research2019
Comparison on the Efficacy of Three Duct Closure Methods after Laparoscopic Common Bile Duct Exploration for Choledocholithiasis.
Article in Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Primary Barbed Suture Versus T-Tube Drainage After Laparoscopic Common Bile Duct Exploration: A Randomized Controlled Trial.Health science reports · 2026Article
- Article
- Surgical management of common bile duct stones following repeated endoscopic failure: A retrospective cohort study covering the pandemic period.Pakistan journal of medical sciences · 2025Article
- Application of double-needle bi-direction barbed sutures in laparoscopic common bile duct suture: a propensity score matching analysis.Updates in surgery · 2025Article
- The association between oxidative balance score and gallstones in adults: a population-based study.Frontiers in nutrition · 2025Article
- The efficacy and safety of laparoscopic common bile duct exploration with primary duct closure for cholecystolithiasis combined with choledocholithiasis.Clinical case reports · 2024Article
- Diabetes Mellitus Mediates the Relationship Between Atherogenic Index of Plasma and Gallstones: A Population-Based Cross-Sectional Study.Diabetes, metabolic syndrome and obesity : targets and therapy · 2024Article
- Residual choledocholithiasis after choledocholithotomy T-tube drainage: what is the best intervention strategy?BMC gastroenterology · 2022Article
- Comparative study of three common bile duct closure techniques after choledocholithotomy: safety and efficacy.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2022Article
- A Modified Suture Technique in Hepaticojejunostomy.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 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
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) is currently the best approach for complex cases of choledocholithiasis or the cases of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) failure. Nevertheless, there is no clear consensus on the optimal duct closure method after LCBDE. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of 3 duct closure methods after LCBDE for choledocholithiasis. MATERIAL AND METHODS In this analysis, 189 patients with choledocholithiasis underwent LCBDE between June 2014 and December 2018. According to different duct closure methods, these patients were divided into T-tube drainage (TTD) group (n=66), common suture group (n=64) and barbed suture group (n=59). The operation time, suturing time, amount of intraoperative bleeding, tube-carried time, length of stay (LOS), hospitalization costs, pre- and post-operative common bile duct (CBD) diameters were all compared among the 3 groups. Six months after discharge, the incidence of complications and recurrent stones was observed. RESULTS The operation time, suturing time, and amount of intraoperative bleeding in barbed suture group were both significantly less than those in the common suture group and the TTD group (P<0.01). When compared with the TTD group, the suturing time, tube-carried time, and LOS were decreased markedly in the common suture group and the barbed suture group (P<0.01). The post-operative CBD diameters in the 3 groups were all significantly larger than the pre-operative CBD diameters (P<0.01). There was no statistical significance among the 3 groups regarding the incidence of complications and recurrent stones (P>0.05). CONCLUSIONS Barbed suture shortened the suturing time, operation time, tube-carried time, and LOS, and lessened the amount of intraoperative bleeding in patients with choledocholithiasis after LCBDE. It was more effective than the common suture and TTD.
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.