ArticlePakistan journal of medical sciences2024
Is an 8 mm cutoff necessary when performing primary common bile duct closure after laparoscopic common bile duct exploration?
Article in Pakistan journal of medical sciences, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Impact of acute cholangitis severity on the safety of laparoscopic common bile duct exploration with primary closure: a stratified retrospective study.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration and primary suture versus ERCP combined with laparoscopic cholecystectomy for choledocholithiasis: a retrospective comparative study.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Laparoscopic Common Bile Duct Exploration for Choledocholithiasis in a Patient with Situs Inversus Totalis and Prior Total Gastrectomy with Roux-en-Y Reconstruction: A Case Report.Surgical case reports · 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 evaluate whether the efficacy and safety of primary duct closure(PDC) was limited to patients with a wider common bile duct(CBD) (≥8 mm). Methods: A retrospective study of patients who underwent PDC after laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) at Taicang Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University from March 2012 to June 2019 was performed. Fifty-five patients were enrolled and classified into two groups according to the diameter of the CBD: the wider group (Group-W, CBD diameter≥8 mm, n=36) and the slender group (Group-S, CBD diameter<8 mm, n=19). The clinical data were compared and analysed. Results: No significant difference in the mean operative time, mean hospital stay or mean total charge was observed. Bile leakage occurred in 5.26%(1/19) of patients in Group-S, which accounted for only 1.81% (1/55) of total patients. There were no severe complications or mortality in either group. No significant differences in the rate of stone recurrence were observed. No biliary stricture occurred during follow-up. Conclusions: PDC may not be limited by the slender CBD (<8 mm), and the proper selection of patients and the standard surgical procedure are particularly important.
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.