Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33151354›Full record

ArticleSurgical endoscopy2021

Intraoperative cholangiography with filling defects: comparative complication analysis of postoperative transcystic duct (TCD) catheter maintenance.

Thiago B de Araujo, Geraldo P Jotz, Camila H Zaki, Rafaela A Mantelli, Vinicius F Fernandes, Guilherme G Pretto, Bernardo S Volkweis, Carlos Otavio Corso, Leandro T Cavazzola

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 29% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. [Laparoscopic modified transcystic biliary drainage for the treatment of biliary stones and diagnosis of biliary disease].Beijing da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Peking University. Health sciences · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Thiago B de AraujoUniversidade Federal de Ciências da Saúde, Programa de Pós-Graduação Ciências da Saúde, R Sarmento Leite 245, Porto Alegre, RS, 90050-170, Brazil. tbd2117@columbia.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-6257-1453
Geraldo P JotzUniversidade Federal de Ciências da Saúde, Programa de Pós-Graduação Ciências da Saúde, R Sarmento Leite 245, Porto Alegre, RS, 90050-170, Brazil.
Camila H ZakiHospital de Clínicas de Porto Alegre, Serviço de Cirurgia Geral, Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil.
Rafaela A MantelliUniversidade Federal de Ciências da Saúde, Programa de Pós-Graduação Ciências da Saúde, R Sarmento Leite 245, Porto Alegre, RS, 90050-170, Brazil.
Vinicius F FernandesHospital de Clínicas de Porto Alegre, Serviço de Cirurgia Geral, Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil.
Guilherme G PrettoHospital de Clínicas de Porto Alegre, Serviço de Cirurgia Geral, Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil.
Bernardo S VolkweisHospital de Clínicas de Porto Alegre, Serviço de Cirurgia Geral, Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil.
Carlos Otavio CorsoHospital de Clínicas de Porto Alegre, Serviço de Cirurgia Geral, Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil.
Leandro T CavazzolaHospital de Clínicas de Porto Alegre, Serviço de Cirurgia Geral, Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil.
Hospital de Clínicas de Porto Alegre · BRUniversidade Federal de Ciências da Saúde de Porto Alegre · BR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThis is a retrospective cohort of patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy with intraoperative cholangiography (IOC) with positive findings for filling defects. We comparatively assessed differences in complication risks for patients that had their cholangiography catheter maintained in its transcystic duct (TCD) position postoperatively. This is a practice proposed to overcome the limited availability of Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) as well as to avoid surgical exploration of the common bile duct.

methodsRetrospective medical record review of all positive IOC from January 2015 to December 2018 were assessed. Patients' demographic and perioperative data from the hospital stay period in which the cholecystectomy occurred until the last surgical ambulatory visit for perioperative characteristics were compared between groups (with vs. without TCD catheter). Complications were operationalized using the Clavien-Dindo scale.

resultsUnivariate analysis of complications showed a 2.4-fold risk increase in complications (95% CI 1.13-5.1) between comparison groups. Number of ERCPs (18 vs. 30), and MRCPs (5 vs. 17) were not significantly different between maintaining or not the TCD catheter postop, respectively. Stratified analysis followed by exact logistic regression supported the findings that maintaining the TCD catheter postoperatively increased complication rates (OR = 5.34, 95% CI 1.22, 29.83, p = 0.022), adjusting for potential confounders.

conclusionThe maintenance of the TCD catheter postoperatively did not prove to be effective in significantly reducing the number of ERCP nor associated complications. Also, outcomes inherited from the practice caused adverse events that surpassed its potential benefits. Moreover, expectant follow-up is reasonable for patients with evidence of common bile duct stones, even in setting with limited resource availability. We do not recommend this practice, even in settings where there are limited resources of more modern management of choledocholithiasis.

Indexed as

Cholecystectomy, LaparoscopicCholedocholithiasisCathetersCholangiographyCholangiopancreatography, Endoscopic RetrogradeHumansRetrospective StudiesCholangiographyCholedocholithiasisComplicationsTranscystic duct catheter

Identifiers

PMID33151354
OpenAlexW3094712115

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.