ArticleSurgical endoscopy2024
Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration is an effective, safe, and less-costly method of treating choledocholithiasis.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- 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
- Common Bile Duct Access After Bariatric Surgery: A Narrative Review of Endoscopic Considerations for Treatment of Choledocholithiasis.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Step-by-step laparoscopic transcystic common bile duct exploration in choledocholithiasis: technical tips, special scenarios, lessons and results from over 100 cases.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Recurrent choledocholithiasis after laparoscopic bile duct exploration: incidence, risk factors, and management strategies.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Article
- Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography and laparoscopic bile duct exploration should be standard procedures for patients with the ice-breaking sign?World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2025Article
- Missed opportunities for laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE): we can do better.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Article
- Article
- The efficacy of one-stage laparoscopic versus two-stage endo-laparoscopic management of cholecystocholedocholithiasis.BMC surgery · 2025Article
- The effect of laparoscopic cholecystectomy combined with laparoscopic transcystic common bile duct exploration in treatment of cholecystolithiasis combined with choledocholithiasis.Updates in surgery · 2025Article
- Analysis of risk factors for bile leakage after laparoscopic exploration and primary suture of common bile duct.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2025Article
- Advancements in Managing Choledocholithiasis and Acute Cholangitis in the Elderly: A Comprehensive Review.Cureus · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAdvancements in laparoscopic techniques led to the adoption of laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) as an alternative to endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) for management of choledocholithiasis (CD). The goal of this study was to describe the initial experience at a safety net hospital with acute care surgeons performing LCBDE for suspected CD. We hypothesized LCBDE would reduce length of stay and hospital costs compared to laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) and ERCP performed in the same hospital admission.
methodsThis was a retrospective case-control study from 2019 to 2023 comparing LCBDE to LC/ERCP among patients diagnosed with CD. Statistical analyses were performed using Mann-Whitney U tests for continuous variables and Chi-square tests for categorical variables. Data reported as median [interquartile range] or research subjects with condition (percentage).
resultsA total of 110 LCBDE were performed, while 121 subjects underwent LC and ERCP. Patients in the LCBDE group were more likely to be female with a total of 87 female subjects (77.6%) compared to 76 male subjects (62.8%) (95% CI 1.14-3.74). Initial WBC was lower in the LCBDE group at 8.4 [6.9-11.8] compared to the LC/ERCP group at 10.9 [7.9-13.5] (p = 0.0013). Remaining demographics and lab values were similar between the two groups. Patients who underwent LCBDE had a significantly shorter length of stay at 2 days [1-3] compared to those in the LC/ERCP group at 4 days [3-6] (p < 0.001). Hospital charges for the LCBDE group were $46,685 [$38,687-$56,703] compared to $60,537 [$47,527-$71,739] for the LC/ERCP group (p < 0.001).
conclusionLCBDE is associated with significantly lower hospital costs and shorter length of stay with similar post-operative complication and 30-day readmission rates. Our results show that LCBDE is safe and should be considered as a first-line approach in the management of CD.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39138682What 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.