Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34988916›Full record

ArticleUpdates in surgery2022

Primary closure versus T-tube drainage after laparoscopic common bile duct exploration in patients with non-severe acute cholangitis.

You Jiang, Jun Zhang, Wenbo Li, Liang Li

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Updates in surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
2.6field-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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Can laparoscopic common bile duct exploration be performed without any drainage? A propensity score-matched study.Wideochirurgia i inne techniki maloinwazyjne = Videosurgery and other miniinvasive techniques · 2024
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Is T-tube drainage no longer needed for laparoscopic common bile duct exploration? A retrospective analysis and literature review.Wideochirurgia i inne techniki maloinwazyjne = Videosurgery and other miniinvasive techniques · 2023
    Article
  16. Article
  17. 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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

You Jiang *Department of General Surgery, Hefei Second People's Hospital, Anhui Medical University, Hefei, 230011, Anhui, People's Republic of China.
Jun Zhang *Department of General Surgery, Hefei Second People's Hospital, Anhui Medical University, Hefei, 230011, Anhui, People's Republic of China.
Wenbo LiDepartment of General Surgery, Hefei Second People's Hospital, Anhui Medical University, Hefei, 230011, Anhui, People's Republic of China.
Liang LiDepartment of General Surgery, Hefei Second People's Hospital, Anhui Medical University, Hefei, 230011, Anhui, People's Republic of China. 94355997@qq.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8602-6329
Anhui Medical University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Although the feasibility of T-tube drainage after emergency laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) has been reported, the safety and effectiveness of primary closure (PC) after LCBDE in patients with non-severe acute cholangitis (AC) remain uncertain. This study aimed to investigate the safety and feasibility of PC after LCBDE in patients with non-severe AC. Consecutive choledocholithiasis patients with non-severe AC who were treated with a laparoscopic approach at our institution between January 2014 and March 2021 were enrolled. These patients were divided into two groups (PC group and T-tube group) based on the way of closure of the common bile duct. The baseline characteristics and perioperative data between the two groups were compared. A total of 230 patients who underwent LCBDE met the inclusion criteria, and there were 94 patients in the PC group and 126 patients in the T-tube group. Baseline data were balanced between the two groups, except that there was less acute cholecystitis in the PC group than in the T-tube group (P = 0.027). Compared to the T-tube group, the PC group had a shorter operation time (P < 0.001), less estimated blood loss (P < 0.001), less use of electrohydraulic lithotripsy (EHL) (P = 0.001), shorter time of drainage removal (P < 0.001) and postoperative hospital stay (P < 0.001) and residual stones (P = 0.029). There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of conversion (4.3 vs. 4.4%, P = 1.000), intraoperative transfusion (0.0 vs. 0.7%, P = 1.000), use of basket (71.2 vs. 69.9%, P = 0.816), postoperative bleeding (1.1 vs. 0.7%, P = 1.000), biliary leakage (4.3 vs. 3.7%, P = 1.000), incision infection (1.1 vs. 2.2%, P = 0.649), pneumonia (2.1 vs. 1.4%, P = 1.000), or cholangitis (1.1 vs. 2.9%, P = 0.651). No postoperative mortality occurred in either group. During the follow-up period, no biliary stricture occurred in the two groups, and two patients in the T-tube group were found to have stone recurrence. PC after LCBDE in choledocholithiasis patients with non-severe AC shows superior clinical outcomes to T-tube drainage in terms of the operation time, estimated blood loss, time of drainage removal, postoperative hospital stay, and residual stones. PC is a safe and feasible treatment for choledocholithiasis patients with non-severe AC after LCBDE.

Indexed as

CholangitisCholedocholithiasisLaparoscopyCommon Bile DuctDrainageHumansLength of StayPostoperative ComplicationsRetrospective StudiesAcute cholangitisCholedocholithiasisLaparoscopic common bile duct explorationPrimary closure

Identifiers

PMID34988916
OpenAlexW4205633829

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.