ArticleBMC surgery2023
Comparative analysis of laparoscopic choledocholithiasis and ERCP treatment after cholecystectomy.
Article in BMC surgery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It has been retracted, and should not be counted. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Safety and efficacy comparison of single-stage and two-stage ERCP combined with laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a meta-analysis and systematic review.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Laparoscopic primary suture versus T-tube drainage for choledocholithiasis: a comparative analysis of efficacy and safety.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Efficacy of modified pancreatic duct stent drainage during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography for common bile duct stones.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2025Article
- Article
- Single-stage laparoendoscopic management of cholecystocholedocholithiasis: A retrospective study comparing starting with ERCP versus with laparoscopic cholecystectomy.Annals of hepato-biliary-pancreatic surgery · 2025Article
- Advancements in Managing Choledocholithiasis and Acute Cholangitis in the Elderly: A Comprehensive Review.Cureus · 2025Review
- Article
- Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
- Retracted
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the overall efficacy of laparoscopic common bile duct exploration(LCBDE) with endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP ) after cholecystectomy.
methodsFrom January 2017 to July 2021, Seventy patients with Choledocholithiasis after cholecystectomy who were admitted to our hospital were selected and divided into ERCP and LCBDE groups. comparison of baseline characteristics, clinical efficacy and postoperative complications between the ERCP and LCBDE.
results①The overall efficacy rate of LCBDE was 97.1%, while the overall efficacy rate in the ERCP group was 76.6%. The LCBDE group demonstrated a significantly higher overall effective rate compared to the ERCP group, with a statistically significant difference (p < 0.05). ②The preoperative and postoperative complications of the LCBDE group were visibly lower than the other group (P < 0.05). The postoperative time to oral intake, postoperative ventilation time, length of hospital stay, and hospital costs were higher in the ERCP group compared to the LCBDE group, with a statistically significant difference (P < 0.05).
conclusionIn the treatment of common bile duct stones after cholecystectomy, LCBDE is a superior choice compared to ERCP in terms of stone diameter, quantity, clearance rate, and hospital costs.
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.