ArticleSurgical endoscopy2024
Moving the needle for laparoscopic common bile duct exploration: defining obstacles for the path forward.
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 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.
- Analysis of risk factors for bile leakage after laparoscopic exploration and primary suture of common bile duct.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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionLaparoscopic cholecystectomy is performed very commonly but laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) is performed infrequently. We aimed to determine the most significant barriers to performing LCBDE and to identify the highest yield interventions to facilitate adoption. METHODS AND PROCEDURES: A national survey was designed by content experts, who regularly perform LCBDE. The survey was distributed by email to the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons and the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma memberships. Non-U.S. surgeon responses were excluded. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the results.
resultsSeven hundred twenty six practicing surgeons responded to the survey, 543 of which were US surgeons who perform laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Only 27% of respondents preferred to manage choledocholithiasis with LCBDE. Their technique of choice was choledochoscopy (70%). Despite this, 36% of surgeons did not have access to a choledochoscope or were unsure if they did. Seventy percent of surgeons who performed LCBDE did not have supplies readily available in a central stocking location. Only 8.5% of surgeons agreed that routine LCBDE would impact their referral relationship with gastroenterology. About half the respondents (47%) considered LCBDE worth the time, but only 25% knew about reimbursement for the procedure. Almost all (85%) of surgeons understood that LCBDE results in shorter length of stay compared to ERCP.
conclusionsOnly a quarter of the surgeons performing cholecystectomy perform LCBDE. Multiple barriers contribute to low LCBDE utilization. Increasing availability of appropriate equipment, a dedicated supply cart, and teaching fluoroscopic LCBDE interventions may address limitations and increase adoption. These efforts may also increase efficiency, minimizing perceived time and skill restraints. Although many surgeons understand LCBDE decreases length of stay, they are unaware of surgeon-specific LCBDE financial benefits. Systematically addressing these barriers may increase LCBDE adoption, improve patient care, and decrease healthcare costs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39143331What 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.