ArticleSurgical endoscopy2023
TAVAC: choledochoscopy disposable scopes, and the single-stage vs. two-stage approach to choledocholithiasis.
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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Minimally Invasive Common Bile Duct Stone Management in Gastric Bypass Patients: Laparoscopic Common Bile Duct Exploration with Disposable Bronchoscope.Obesity surgery · 2024Trial
- Transcystic papillary balloon dilatation vs. laparoscopic choledochoscopy for choledocholithiasis: a retrospective observational propensity score-matched cohort study.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPrevious studies have been published evaluating the benefits and drawbacks of clearing the common bile duct of stones using a single-stage approach (LCBDE + LC) versus a two-stage approach (ERCP followed by LC). These studies have demonstrated that a single-stage approach offers similar outcomes and morbidities as a two-stage approach, with the added benefit of a lower cost and shorter length of stays. However, it is significant we understand why LCBDE is not commonly performed currently and also the lapse in surgical trainee exposure and competence in LCBDE. This paper aims to address the lapse in surgical trainee exposure to LCBDE, evaluate the scopes currently available to perform LCBDE, and review current data evaluating the risks and benefits of single-stage versus two-stage approaches to.
methodsWe utilized PubMed to analyze all publications related to the various disposable scopes utilized to perform choledochoscopy. We also discuss the need for disposable scopes and how this new market niche is transforming the choledochoscopy space.
resultsWe analyzed the data related to single-stage and two-stage approach to choledocholithiasis. We noted an overall shorter length of stay and also decreased costs in favor of a single-stage approach.
conclusionA single-stage LCBDE is the most cost-effective treatment option for choledocholithiasis in patients with choledocholithiasis undergoing a cholecystectomy. In addition, single-stage approach is associated with shorter length of stay. Knowledge of the available choledochoscopes and tools available to surgeons to perform choledochoscopy is significant. The evidence does support the use of disposable choledochoscope from a cost and cross-contamination perspective. Additionally, efforts should be made to incorporate LCBDE into the teaching paradigm of surgical training programs.
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.