ArticleSurgical endoscopy2025
The incidence, technical management and outcomes of impacted stones encountered during 1447 laparoscopic bile duct explorations.
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 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.
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
backgroundStone impaction is an obstacle to successful laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE). This study aims to identify the incidence, operative difficulties and techniques used to disimpact and remove impacted stones during LCBDE.
methodsProspectively collected data from a large series of LCBDE. Preoperative and operative findings in patients with impacted stones including the difficulty grading, impaction site, disimpaction methods, operative complications and postoperative outcomes were analysed.
results136 of 1447 (9.4%) LCBDEs had impacted stones; 63.2% females, median age 54 years. 88.2% were emergencies including 94 Jaundice (69.1%), 19 acute pains, 6 acute cholecystitis and 5 pancreatitis. 16.9% had previous ERCP, all at other units pre-referral. LCBDE was transcystic in 52 (38.2%) and via choledochotomy in 84 (61.8%), all requiring choledochoscopy. LCBDE was difficulty grade IV in 60 (44.1%) and grade V in 76 (55.9%). The number of stones ranged from 1 to 70 (median 2) and stone size 4-30 mm (median 11). Impaction was at lower CBD in 83 (61%), Mid-CBD 29 (21.3%), Intra-hepatic 15 (11%), intra and extra hepatic in 6 (4.4%) and intramural in 3. Disimpaction was by biopsy forceps fragmentation in 37 patients (27.2%), basket dislodgment in 35 (25.7%), biopsy forceps plus basket/hook retractor or cholecochoscope push in 20 (14.7%), Fogarty/Foley balloon with or without basket in 15 (11%), laser in 12 (8.8%), grasper fragmentation in 9 patients (6.6%), and open conversion in 7 (5.1%); 3 stone removal, 2 choledochoduodenostomy and 2 hepaticojejunostomy. Stones left for postoperative ERCP in four patients (2.8%). The median operative time was 160 min.
conclusionsImpacted stones increase the difficulty of LCBDE. The evolution of techniques and instruments over the course of this study increased the success of transcystic exploration and reduced reliance on choledochotomy. The prediction of impaction, availability of lithotripsy and increasing experience should improve postoperative outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39762603What 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.