ArticleHeliyon2024
Clinical application of ERCP concurrent laparoscopic cholecystectomy in the treatment of cholecystolithiasis complicated with extrahepatic bile duct stones.
Article in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, endoscopic papillary balloon dilation, and laparoscopic hepatectomy for intra- and extrahepatic bile duct stones.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2025Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To compare the clinical efficacy of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) combined with laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) and laparoscopic common bile duct exploration and lithotomy (LCBDE) in the treatment of cholecystolithiasis combined with bile duct stones. Methods: From September 2018 to January 2022, 195 patients with cholecystolithiasis complicated with extrahepatic bile duct stones from Department of Department of General Surgery, Shanghai Jiading Central Hospital met the inclusion criteria, including 60 cases in the LC group and 86 cases in the LCBDE group. The general condition, operation success rate, complications and residual stone rate of the two groups were retrospectively analyzed. Results: In the simultaneous operation group, 58 patients successfully performed ERCP, and the indwelling rate of the abdominal drainage tube (41.7 % vs. 95.3 %) was significantly better than that in the LCBDE group. There was no significant difference in the conversion rate to open surgery, operation time, and intraoperative blood loss between the two groups. In the simultaneous surgery group, 4 patients (6.7 %) developed pancreatitis after ERCP, which was cured by conservative treatment. The pain score at 6 h after operation was significantly lower than that in the LCBDE group (3.9 ± 1.6 vs 6.5 ± 2.4). There were no significant differences in biliary leakage (1.7 % vs. 4.7 %), postoperative cholangitis (5.0 % vs. 5.8 %), incision infection (3.3 % vs. 3.5 %), and bile duct stone residue rate (5.0 % vs 3.5 %) between the two groups. There was no severe pancreatitis, second operation or death. The duration of hospital stay was shortened in the concurrent operation group (5.1 ± 2.3d vs 7.9 ± 3.7d), and the operation cost was significantly higher than that in the LCBDE group (48839.9 ± 8549.5 vs 34635.9 ± 5893.7 yuan). Conclusion: ERCP combined with LC and LCBDE are both safe and effective methods for the treatment of cholecystolithiasis combined with extrahepatic bile duct stones. The simultaneous operation group has certain advantages in patient comfort and rapid rehabilitation, which can be popularized in qualified units.
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.