ArticleLangenbeck's archives of surgery2025
Outcomes after index cholecystectomy: a UK longitudinal multi-centre cohort Study.
Article in Langenbeck's archives of surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
purposeInternational guidelines for management of acute biliary pathology recommend emergency cholecystectomy (EmC), citing improved outcomes compared to elective cholecystectomy (ElC) based on trials which may not reflect the capacity constraints in clinical practice, nor selection based on multiple prior attendances with emergency biliary pathology or attendances following a decision for ElC. We therefore conducted a longitudinal retrospective study evaluating all attendances with biliary pathology prior to cholecystectomy with the aim of assessing whether EmC is justified in this context.
methodsData was collected on patients undergoing cholecystectomy between 2016 and 2021 at four centres. Patients who had an emergency presentation with a biliary pathology prior to cholecystectomy up to 2010 were included. Patients were divided into EmC and ElC groups, EmC was defined as cholecystectomy occurring during an emergency admission with biliary pathology. Multilevel regression modelling was used to identify independent predictors for time to surgery from index presentation, number of re-attendances and length of stay (LoS).
results2,056 patients were included: 1,786 (86.9%) had ElC and 270 (13.1%) EmC. EmC was independently associated with a reduction in time to surgery (-112.32 days [95% CI -140.22 to -84.42]). However, there was a significant increase in both post-operative and overall LoS (+ 3.34 days [95% CI 1.81-4.86]) across all admissions with EmC. EmC did not significantly reduce rates of emergency re-attendance prior to surgery overall.
conclusionAlthough EmC reduces time to surgery, it does not reduce the number of emergency re-attendances and increases LoS. In the context of limited emergency theatre capacity, it may be beneficial to prioritise those who benefit most from EmC.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39775299What 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.