SynthesisSurgical endoscopy2025
Intraoperative imaging of the common bile duct: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Surgical endoscopy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- SAGES guidelines for the use of intraoperative imaging of the common bile duct.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Guideline
- Comparative Evaluation of Standard Cholangiography, Intravenous, and Intracholecystic Indocyanine Green Fluorescence Cholangiography During Elective Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: Results of a Three-Arm Randomized Trial.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Trial
- Clinical feasibility of direct cholangiography via a PTGBD tube during laparoscopic living-donor hepatectomy.Surgery today · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBenign biliary disease is a common gastrointestinal condition often requiring surgical intervention. Serious complications during minimally invasive cholecystectomy, such as bile duct injury (BDI) and retained common bile duct stones, must be minimized to improve outcomes and optimize resource use. This systematic review summarizes data comparing intraoperative cholangiography (IOC), fluorescent imaging (FI) with indocyanine green (ICG), and laparoscopic ultrasound (LUS) during laparoscopic cholecystectomy.
methodsA systematic review was conducted to address key questions (KQs) on the use of intraoperative common bile duct imaging to prevent BDI and retained stones. Comparisons included routine IOC (KQ1 routine versus selective IOC (KQ1b) in adult and pediatric populations (KQ1p), as well as IOC versus FI with ICG (KQ2) and IOC versus LUS (KQ3). Searches were conducted in PubMed, Embase, Clinicaltrials.gov, ICTRP, and Cochrane databases. Meta-analyses were performed using random effects models (inverse variance and Mantel-Haenszel), and risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and a modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.
resultsOf 1,981 unique publications, 46 studies met inclusion criteria (KQ1 n = 19, KQ1b n = 7, KQ1p n = 5, KQ2 n = 6, KQ3 n = 9). IOC was associated with increased operative time (Mean difference 22.61 min [95% CI 16.87, 28.34]) and technical failure (OR 8.28 [1.02, 67.47]). Routine IOC showed trends toward reduced bile duct injury (RR 0.66 [0.08, 5.36]) and increased intraoperative stone detection (RR 2.83 [1.08, 7.41]). Compared to FI with ICG, IOC showed a trend toward fewer bile duct injuries (RR 0.33 [0.01, 8.02]) and more frequent stone identification (RR 5.00 [0.25, 102.00]). IOC also reduced the need for second imaging modalities. No differences were found in postoperative stone detection across techniques.
conclusionsRoutine IOC may offer advantages over selective IOC, FI with ICG, and LUS in reducing complications, but is also associated with higher technical failure and longer operative time.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40634727What 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.