SynthesisBJS open2025
Risk factors and mitigating measures associated with bile duct injury during cholecystectomy: meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BJS open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Treatment of Bile Duct Transection Injury in an Integrated System.The Permanente journal · 2026Article
- Selective intraoperative cholangiography: A retrospective single-centre analysis compared with national data and implications for surgical training.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2026Article
- Predicting Postoperative Complications After Cholecystectomy for Acute Cholecystitis: Comparative Performance of Disease-Specific and General Prognostic Scores.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Surgical outcomes of indocyanine green fluorescent cholangiography in emergency laparoscopic cholecystectomy performed by junior surgeons for acute cholecystitis.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Article
- Association of indocyanine green fluorescence navigation with extrahepatic biliary anatomy identification and operative efficiency in laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a retrospective cohort study.Frontiers in medicine · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCholecystectomy is a common procedure with a notable risk of iatrogenic bile duct injury. Understanding the factors contributing to bile duct injury and the effectiveness of preventative measures is crucial for improving surgical outcomes. This meta-analysis aimed to identify and synthesize high-quality evidence on risk factors and mitigating measures associated with bile duct injury after cholecystectomy.
methodsFollowing the PRISMA guidelines, a comprehensive literature search was conducted across multiple databases. Included studies reported on adult patients undergoing cholecystectomy with relevant risk factors for bile duct injury. Meta-analyses of unadjusted and adjusted risk estimates were conducted with a random-effects model to account for heterogeneity. The study period across all included studies spanned from 1989 to 2016.
resultsThe review included 31 studies comprising 6 513 599 cholecystectomies and 18 259 bile duct injuries. The primary risk factors identified were male sex (adjusted odds ratio 1.27, 95% confidence interval 1.13 to 1.39) and acute cholecystitis (adjusted odds ratio 1.74, 1.27 to 2.39). The critical view of safety was inconsistently documented and not statistically linked to reduced bile duct injury. Intraoperative cholangiogram's routine use did not show a statistically significant association with reduced incidence of bile duct injury (adjusted odds ratio 0.92, 0.70 to 1.23).
conclusionMale sex and acute cholecystitis significantly increase the risk of bile duct injury after cholecystectomy. Risk stratification for these patients before surgery would ultimately aid the shared decision-making consent process.
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.