Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33937738›Full record

ReviewSurgery open science2021

A meta-analysis of the use of intraoperative cholangiography; time to revisit our approach to cholecystectomy?

Eoin Donnellan, Jonathan Coulter, Cherian Mathew, Michelle Choynowski, Louise Flanagan, Magda Bucholc, Alison Johnston, Michael Sugrue

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Surgery open science, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Bile Duct Injury and Litigation in Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: A Global Review of Current and Future Preventative Initiatives.Annals of surgery open : perspectives of surgical history, education, and clinical approaches · 2025
    Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
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

8 authors.

Eoin DonnellanDepartment of Surgery, Letterkenny University Hospital and Donegal Clinical Research Academy, Letterkenny, County Donegal, Ireland.
Jonathan CoulterDepartment of Surgery, Letterkenny University Hospital and Donegal Clinical Research Academy, Letterkenny, County Donegal, Ireland.
Cherian MathewDepartment of Surgery, Letterkenny University Hospital and Donegal Clinical Research Academy, Letterkenny, County Donegal, Ireland.
Michelle ChoynowskiDepartment of Surgery, Letterkenny University Hospital and Donegal Clinical Research Academy, Letterkenny, County Donegal, Ireland.
Louise FlanaganEU INTERREG Emergency Surgery Outcome Advancement Project, Centre for Personalised Medicine, Letterkenny, Ireland.
Magda BucholcIntelligent Systems Research Centre, School of Computing, Engineering and Intelligent Systems, Ulster University, Londonderry, Northern Ireland.
Alison JohnstonDepartment of Surgery, Letterkenny University Hospital and Donegal Clinical Research Academy, Letterkenny, County Donegal, Ireland.
Michael SugrueDepartment of Surgery, Letterkenny University Hospital and Donegal Clinical Research Academy, Letterkenny, County Donegal, Ireland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDespite some evidence of improved survival with intraoperative cholangiography during cholecystectomy, debate has raged about its benefit, in part because of its questionable benefit, time, and resources required to complete.

methodsAn International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews-registered (ID CRD42018102154) meta-analysis following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines using PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane library from 2003 to 2018 was undertaken including search strategy "intraoperative AND cholangiogra* AND cholecystectomy." Articles scoring ≥ 16 for comparative and ≥ 10 for noncomparative using the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies criteria were included. A dichotomous random effects meta-analysis using the Mantel-Haenszel method performed on Review Manager Version 5.3 was carried out.

resultsOf 2,059 articles reviewed, 62 met criteria for final analysis. The mean rate of intraoperative cholangiography was 38.8% (range 1.6%-96.4%).There was greater detection of bile duct stones during cholecystectomy with routine intraoperative cholangiography compared with selective intraoperative cholangiography (odds ratio = 3.28, confidence interval = 2.80-3.86, P value < .001). While bile duct injury during cholecystectomy was less with intraoperative cholangiography (0.39%) than without intraoperative cholangiography (0.43%), it was not statistically significant (odds ratio = 0.88, confidence interval = 0.65-1.19, P value = .41). Readmission following cholecystectomy with intraoperative cholangiography was 3.0% compared to 3.5% without intraoperative cholangiography (odds ratio = 0.91, confidence interval = 0.78-1.06, P value = .23).

conclusionThe use of intraoperative cholangiography still has its place in cholecystectomy based on the detection of choledocholithiasis and the potential reduction of unfavorable outcomes associated with common bile duct stones. This meta-analysis, the first to review intraoperative cholangiography use, identified a marked variation in cholangiography use. Retrospective studies limit the ability to critically define association between intraoperative cholangiography use and bile duct injury.

Identifiers

PMID33937738
PMCPMC8076912

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.