ArticleSurgical endoscopy2023
Efficacy and safety of laparoscopic common bile duct exploration with primary closure and intraoperative endoscopic nasobiliary drainage for choledocholithiasis combined with cholecystolithiasis.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- The safety of not implementing endoscopic nasobiliary drainage after elective clearance of choledocholithiasis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC surgery · 2024Pooled it
- Safety and outcomes of laparoscopic bile duct exploration: a UK-wide multi-centre study (R-ALiCE).Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Predicting unplanned extubation risk in patients with endoscopic nasobiliary drainage.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2025Article
- Primary closure with self-disengaging biliary stent following laparoscopic CBD exploration in normal-diameter ducts: a propensity score matching study.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Improved outcomes and prognostic risk prediction for laparoscopic common bile duct exploration with primary closure versus T-tube drainage.American journal of translational research · 2025Article
- Textbook outcomes in the laparoscopic common bile duct exploration of choledocholithiasis: a new comprehensive quality evaluation criterion.Frontiers in surgery · 2025Article
- Endoscopic nasobiliary drainage is superior to biliary stent placement in preventing postendoscopic papillary balloon dilation pancreatitis.Therapeutic advances in gastroenterology · 2025Article
- 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 · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe need for intraoperative endoscopic nasobiliary drainage during laparoscopic cholecystectomy and laparoscopic common bile duct exploration with primary closure is controversial in the treatment of cholecystolithiasis combined with choledocholithiasis. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of laparoscopic cholecystectomy + laparoscopic common bile duct exploration + intraoperative endoscopic nasobiliary drainage + primary closure (LC + LCBDE + IO-ENBD + PC). The safety of different intubation methods in IO-ENBD was also evaluated.
methodFrom January 2018 to January 2022, 168 consecutive patients with cholecystolithiasis combined with choledocholithiasis underwent surgical treatment in our institution. Patients were divided into two groups: group A (n = 96) underwent LC + LCBDE + IO-ENBD + PC and group B (n = 72) underwent LC + LCBDE + PC. Patient characteristics, perioperative indicators, complications, stone residual, and recurrence rates were analyzed. Group A was divided into two subgroups. In group A
resultsNo mortality in the two groups. The operation success rates in groups A and B were 97.9% (94/96) and 100% (72/72), respectively. In group A, two patients were converted to T-tube drainage. The stone clearance rates of group A and group B were 100% (96/96) and 98.6% (71/72), respectively. Common bile duct diameter was smaller in group A [10 vs. 12 mm, P < 0.001] in baseline data. In perioperative indicators, group A had a longer operation time [165 vs.135 min, P < 0.001], but group A had a shorter hospitalization time [10 vs.13 days, P = 0.002]. The overall complications were 7.3% (7/96) in group A and 12.5% (9/72) in group B. Postoperative bile leakage was less in group A [0% (0/96) vs. 5.6% (4/72), P = 0.032)]. There were no residual and recurrent stones in group A. And there were one residual stone and one recurrent stone in group B (all 1.4%). The median follow-up time was 12 months in group A and 6 months in group B. During the follow-up period, 2 (2.8%) patients in group B had a mild biliary stricture. At subgroup analysis, group A
conclusionLC + LCBDE + IO-ENBD + PC is safer and more effective than LC + LCBDE + PC because it reduces hospitalization time and avoids postoperative bile leakage. In the IO-ENBD procedure, the antegrade placement of the nasobiliary drainage tube is more feasible and effective because it reduces the operation time and hospitalization time, and also reduces injury to the duodenal papilla.
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.