ArticleFrontiers in surgery2022
Comparison of different time intervals between laparoscopic cholecystectomy to endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography for patients with cholecystolithiasis complicated by choledocholithiasis.
Article in Frontiers in surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Preoperative difficulty assessment of laparoscopic cholecystectomy after treatment for choledocholithiasis.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Single-stage versus two-stage ERCP and laparoscopic cholecystectomy for gallbladder stones with choledocholithiasis: a retrospective cohort study with long-term prognostic comparative analysis.BMC gastroenterology · 2026Article
- Article
- A Study of Factors Leading to Difficult Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy at a Tertiary Care Center in Northeastern India.Cureus · 2024Article
- Paradigm shift towards emergency cholecystectomy: one site experience of the Chole-QuiC process.Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England · 2024Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) followed by laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is a common strategy for treatment of patients with gallstones with co-existing stones in the common bile duct (CBD). We conducted this study to compare the effect of different time intervals between ERCP and LC. Methods: A total of 214 patients who underwent elective LC after ERCP for gallstones and CBD stones between January 2015 and May 2021 were retrospectively reviewed. We compared the hospital stay, operation time, perioperative morbidity, and conversion rate to open cholecystectomy, according to the interval between ERCP and ERCP and LC, namely, one day, 2-3 days, and 4 days or more. A generalized linear model was used to analyze the differences among the groups for outcomes. Results: There were a total of 214 patients with 52, 80, and 82 patients in group 1, group 2, and group 3 respectively. These groups did not differ significantly in terms of major complications or conversion to open surgery ( Conclusion: We recommend that LC be performed within three days after ERCP to reduce operating time and hospital stay.
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.