Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36923161›Full record

SynthesisJSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons

Intraoperative Cholangiography in Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Catherine Hall, Slesha Amatya, Ramesh Shanmugasundaram, Ngee-Soon Lau, Edwin Beenen, Sivakumar Gananadha

Open access · hybridAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
6.5field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. 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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Catherine HallDepartment of Surgery, The Canberra Hospital, Garran, Australia.
Slesha AmatyaAustralian National University Medical School, The Australian National University, Canberra, Australia.
Ramesh ShanmugasundaramAustralian National University Medical School, The Australian National University, Canberra, Australia.
Ngee-Soon LauDepartment of Surgery, The Canberra Hospital, Garran, Australia.
Edwin BeenenDepartment of Surgery, The Canberra Hospital, Garran, Australia.
Sivakumar GananadhaDepartment of Surgery, The Canberra Hospital, Garran, Australia.
Canberra Hospital · AUAustralian National University · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background/Objectives: Routine intraoperative cholangiography (IOC) for laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) remains controversial. The primary outcomes of this meta-analysis were detection rates of choledocholithiasis, bile duct injuries (BDI), and missed stones in LCs. Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted for the time period January 1, 1990 to July 31, 2022. Some studies reported LCs with conversion to open therefore subgroup analysis in BDI rates was performed for studies which included LCs with and without conversion to open. Studies including primary open cholecystectomies were excluded. I Results: Fourteen studies involving 440659 patients were included. In studies comparing routine and selective IOC policies in LC, 61.1% of patients underwent routine IOC; 38.9% underwent selective IOC. In studies comparing IOC to no IOC in LC, 17.3% of patients had IOC; 82.7% did not. Between the selective and routine IOC groups there was no difference in choledocholithiasis detection rate (odds ratio [OR] = 1.33, p = 0.20, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.86 - 2.04), no difference in the rate of missed stones (OR = 1.59, p = 0.58; 95% CI = 0.31 - 8.29), and no difference in BDI rates in selective compared to routine IOC (OR = 0.92, p = 0.92; 95% CI = 0.20 - 4.22). There was no difference in the BDI detection rates in LC with and without IOC (OR = 1.12, p = 0.77; 95% CI = 0.52 - 2.38). Conclusion: This is the largest meta-analysis on this topic to date. There was no statistically significant difference in choledocholithiasis detection, missed stones, or BDI rates in the analyzed groups.

Indexed as

Cholecystectomy, LaparoscopicCholedocholithiasisCholangiographyCholecystectomyHumansOdds RatioBile duct injuryCholedocholithiasisIntraoperative cholangiographyLaparoscopic cholecystectomyRoutine and selective

Identifiers

PMID36923161
PMCPMC10009875
OpenAlexW4324278784

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.