ArticleSurgical endoscopy2025
Treatment for recurrent choledocholithiasis: endoscopic? or laparoscopic? A prospective cohort study.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Biliary stent migration after cholecystectomy following a single-preoperative ERCP: insights into real-world bile duct management.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Cystic duct anatomical variations and the risk of choledocholithiasis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Annals of gastroenterology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundEndoscopic and laparoscopic techniques are crucial for management of bile duct stone.
objectiveThe aim of this study was to share our initial experiences with endoscopic and laparoscopic treatments for recurrent choledocholithiasis, with a particular focus on long-term complications.
methodsFrom January 2014 to June 2017, a total of 153 patients with recurrent common bile duct stones were prospectively recruited in this study. Patients were scheduled for either an endoscopic procedure (ERCP/EST group, n = 84), or a laparoscopic procedure (LCBDE group, n = 69). Data were collected on comorbid conditions, presenting symptoms, bile duct clearance, and the incidence of both short-term and long-term complications.
resultsPatients in ERCP/EST group had a stone clearance rate comparable to that of the LCBDE group (94.2% vs 91.7%, p = 0.549). Minor (Clavien-Dindo grade 1 and 2) and major short-term complications (Clavien-Dindo grade 3 and above) were similar between patients in two groups (ERCP/EST group 17.9% versus LCBDE group 26.1%, and ERCP/EST group 7.1% versus LCBDE group 5.8%, p = 0.227 and p = 0.740, respectively). Patients in the ERCP/EST group had a shorter stone free interval than patients in the LCBDE group (28.5 ± 14.7 months versus 43.3 ± 17.8 months, p = 0.029). During a mean follow-up period of 67.0 months, more patients in the ERCP/EST group experienced stone recurrence compared to those in the LCBDE group (26.1% vs 11.6%, p = 0.020). In the ERCP/EST group, 45.5% (10/22) of the recurrent cases experienced more than two recurrences, with three patients requiring choledochojejunostomy due to repeated recurrence. Among patients with a non-dilated common bile duct (d ≤ 8 mm), both groups had comparable short-term and long-term complication rates (p = 0.151 and p = 0.404, respectively).
conclusionsLaparoscopic treatment is a safe and effective option for patients with recurrent choledocholithiasis, extending the stone free interval, reducing the likelihood of stone recurrence, and highlighting benefits of minimally invasive surgery.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39623176What 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.