Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32852893›Full record

SynthesisBJS open2020

Optimal timing for surgical reconstruction of bile duct injury: meta-analysis.

A M Schreuder, B C Nunez Vas, K A C Booij, S van Dieren, M G Besselink, O R Busch, T M van Gulik

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BJS open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.2field-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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 35 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Observational
  15. Review
  16. Hepaticojejunostomy for bile duct injury: state of the art.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2023
    Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

A M SchreuderDepartment of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-9942-6922
B C Nunez VasDepartment of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
K A C BooijDepartment of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Spaarne Gasthuis, Haarlem, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-9839-4663
S van DierenDepartment of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
M G BesselinkDepartment of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
O R BuschDepartment of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
T M van GulikDepartment of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Amsterdam University Medical Centers · NLSpaarne Ziekenhuis · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMajor bile duct injury (BDI) after cholecystectomy generally requires surgical reconstruction by means of hepaticojejunostomy. However, there is controversy regarding the optimal timing of surgical reconstruction.

methodsA systematic review was performed by searching PubMed, Embase and Cochrane databases for studies published between 1990 and 2018 reporting on the timing of hepaticojejunostomy for BDI (PROSPERO registration CRD42018106611). The main outcomes were postoperative morbidity, postoperative mortality and anastomotic stricture. When individual patient data were available, time intervals of these studies were attuned to render these comparable with other studies. Data for comparable time intervals were pooled using a random-effects model. In addition, data for all included studies were pooled using a generalized linear model.

resultsSome 21 studies were included, representing 2484 patients. In these studies, 15 different time intervals were used. Eight studies used the time intervals of less than 14 days (early), 14 days to 6 weeks (intermediate) and more than 6 weeks (delayed). Meta-analysis revealed a higher risk of postoperative morbidity in the intermediate interval (early versus intermediate: risk ratio (RR) 0·73, 95 per cent c.i. 0·54 to 0·98; intermediate versus delayed: RR 1·50, 1·16 to 1·93). Stricture rate was lowest in the delayed interval group (intermediate versus delayed: RR 1·53, 1·07 to 2·20). Postoperative mortality did not differ within time intervals. The additional analysis demonstrated increased odds of postoperative morbidity for reconstruction between 2 and 6 weeks, and decreased odds of anastomotic stricture for delayed reconstruction.

conclusionThis meta-analysis found that surgical reconstruction of BDI between 2 and 6 weeks should be avoided as this was associated with higher risk of postoperative morbidity and hepaticojejunostomy stricture.

Indexed as

Anastomosis, SurgicalBile DuctsCholecystectomyConstriction, PathologicHumansPostoperative ComplicationsTime Factors

Identifiers

PMID32852893
PMCPMC7528508
OpenAlexW3080534386

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.