ArticleLangenbeck's archives of surgery2023
The short- and long-term outcome after the surgical management of common bile duct stones in a tertiary referral hospital.
Article in Langenbeck's archives of surgery, 2023. 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.
- The application value of preoperative magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography in predicting the success of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography stone removal.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Article
- Review
- Article
- Surgical Removal of a Huge Common Bile Duct Stone.The Korean journal of gastroenterology = Taehan Sohwagi Hakhoe chi · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe removal of common bile duct stones by endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) shows excellent results with low complication rates and is therefore considered a gold standard. However, in case of stones non-removable by ERCP, surgical extraction is needed. The surgical approach is still controversial and clinical guidelines are missing. This study aims to analyze the outcomes of patients treated with choledochotomy or hepaticojejunostomy for common bile duct stones.
methodsAll patients who underwent choledochotomy or hepaticojejunostomy for common bile duct stones at a tertiary referral hospital over 11 years were included. The analyzed data contains basic demographics, diagnostics, surgical parameters, length of hospitalization, and morbidity and mortality.
resultsOver the study period, 4375 patients underwent cholecystectomy, and 655 received an ERCP with stone extraction, with 48 of these patients receiving subsequent surgical treatment. ERCP was attempted in 23/30 (77%) of the choledochotomy patients pre/intraoperatively and 11/18 (56%) in hepaticojejunostomy patients. The 30-day major complication rate (Clavien-Dindo > II) was 1/30 (3%) in the choledochotomy group and 2/18 (11%) in the hepaticojejunostomy group. Complications after 30 days occurred in 3/30 (10%) patients and 2/18 (11%), respectively, and no mortality occurred.
conclusionERCP should still be considered the gold standard, although due to low short- and long-term morbidity rates, choledochotomy and hepaticojejunostomy represent effective surgical solutions for common bile duct stones.
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.