ArticleSurgical endoscopy2021
Management of bile duct stones at cholecystectomy: an Australian single-centre experience over 2 years.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Primary duct closure versus T-tube drainage after laparoscopic common bile duct exploration: a meta-analysis.Journal of Zhejiang University. Science. B · 2021Pooled it
- Laparoscopic primary suture versus T-tube drainage for choledocholithiasis: a comparative analysis of efficacy and safety.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- One-stage versus two-stage management for acute cholecystitis associated with common bile duct stones: a retrospective cohort study.Surgical endoscopy · 2022Article
- Risk factors of recurrence following common bile duct exploration for choledocholithiasis.Journal of minimally invasive surgery · 2021Article
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 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBile duct stones with an intact gallbladder can be treated with either bile duct exploration at cholecystectomy or endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) before or after cholecystectomy. The aim of this study was to evaluate the management of bile duct stones at cholecystectomy at our institution. We also aimed to identify risk factors for failure of ductal clearance in our series.
methodsA retrospective review of 690 laparoscopic cholecystectomies over a 2-year period was performed. Patients who underwent laparoscopic bile duct exploration formed the study population.
resultsOf 69 patients with suspected bile duct stones at cholecystectomy 67 (97%) patients underwent laparoscopic bile duct exploration upfront. Complete ductal clearance was achieved in 52 (78%) patients. Postoperative complications (10/67, 15%) included postoperative bleeding (2/67, 3%), bile leak (1/67, 1%), and superficial wound infection (1/67, 1%). There was no mortality. The mean operative time was 126 min and the median length of stay was 2 (1-4) days. A wider common bile duct (CBD) (≥ 8 mm) increased the risk of failed ductal clearance (OR 4.50; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.15-19.23).
conclusionThis study found that laparoscopic bile duct exploration can effectively and safely treat bile duct stones suspected at cholecystectomy.
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.