ArticleSurgical endoscopy2020
Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration in patients with previous abdominal biliary tract operations.
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 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical application of indocyanine green fluorescence navigation technique in laparoscopic common bile duct exploration for complex hepatolithiasis.BMC surgery · 2024Trial
- Robotic Cholecystectomy and Common Bile Duct Exploration: Multidisciplinary Approach in a Complex Case of Choledocholithiasis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration on a patient with situs inversus totalis and previous biliary surgery: a case report.International journal of surgery case reports · 2026Article
- Treatment for recurrent choledocholithiasis: endoscopic? or laparoscopic? A prospective cohort study.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Article
- Review
- Surgical strategies for challenging common bile duct stones in the endoscopic era: A comprehensive review of current evidence.World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2024Review
- A proposed difficulty grading system for laparoscopic bile duct exploration: benefits to clinical practice, training and research.Surgical endoscopy · 2023Article
- Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration following prior gastrectomy: surgical safety and feasibility.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2023Article
- Surgical application of an implantable biliary access device in the treatment of refractory recurrent cholangiolithiasis.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2023Article
- A comparison of the therapeutic outcomes between primary duct closure and T-tube drainage after laparoscopic common bile duct exploration: a single-centre retrospective study.Wideochirurgia i inne techniki maloinwazyjne = Videosurgery and other miniinvasive techniques · 2023Article
- Surgical outcome of benign cases with pelvic adhesions undergoing robotic total hysterectomy.Journal of the Chinese Medical Association : JCMA · 2022Article
- Laparoscopic surgery for gallstones or common bile duct stones: A stably safe and feasible surgical strategy for patients with a history of upper abdominal surgery.Frontiers in surgery · 2022Article
- Differences in Outcome and Comparison of Stress and Immune Status in Patients with Recurrent Common Bile Duct Stones after Biliary Tract Surgery Choosing Three Procedures (ERCP, OCBDE, and LCBDE) for Treatment.Computational and mathematical methods in medicine · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA history of abdominal biliary tract surgery has been identified as a relative contraindication for laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE), and there are very few reports about laparoscopic procedures in patients with a history of abdominal biliary tract surgery.
methodsWe retrospectively reviewed the clinical outcomes of 227 consecutive patients with previous abdominal biliary tract operations at our institution between December 2013 and June 2019. A total of 110 consecutive patients underwent LCBDE, and 117 consecutive patients underwent open common bile duct exploration (OCBDE). Patient demographics and perioperative variables were compared between the two groups.
resultsThe LCBDE group performed significantly better than the OCBDE group with respect to estimated blood loss [30 (5-700) vs. 50 (10-1800) ml; p = 0.041], remnant common bile duct (CBD) stones (17 vs. 28%; p = 0.050), postoperative hospital stay [7 (3-78) vs. 8.5 (4.5-74) days; p = 0.041], and time to oral intake [2.5 (1-7) vs. 3 (2-24) days; p = 0.015]. There were no significant differences in the operation time [170 (60-480) vs. 180 (41-330) minutes; p = 0.067]. A total of 19 patients (17%) in the LCBDE group were converted to open surgery. According to Clavien's classification of complications, the LCBDE group had significantly fewer postoperative complications than the OCBDE group (40 vs. 57; p = 0.045). There was no mortality in either group. Multiple previous operations (≥ 2 times), a history of open surgery, and previous biliary tract surgery (including bile duct or gallbladder + bile duct other than cholecystectomy alone) were risk factors for postoperative adhesion (p = 0.000, p = 0.000, and p = 0.000, respectively).
conclusionLCBDE is ultimately the least invasive, safest, and the most effective treatment option for patients with previous abdominal biliary tract operations and is especially suitable for those with a history of cholecystectomy, few previous operations (< 2 times), or a history of laparoscopic surgery.
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.