ArticleSurgical endoscopy2025
Missed opportunities for laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE): we can do better.
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.
- Two minimally invasive surgical approaches for the treatment of common bile duct stones with gallbladder stones: a retrospective study.BMC gastroenterology · 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
backgroundLaparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) is a safe and effective alternative to endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) plus laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC), but with a shorter length of stay (LOS). Nevertheless, LCBDE remains highly underutilized. Since 2021, our institution has conducted simulation-based LCBDE training for surgeons and residents. We sought to determine our current LCBDE utilization rate and potential utilization rate by identifying "missed opportunities" for LCBDE.
methodsWe reviewed LCBDE or ERCP plus LC cases from 2023 to 2024 at a single institution. We excluded LC for hepatobiliary cancer and ERCP for non-gallstone disease. Contraindications to LCBDE were severe cholangitis, severe pancreatitis, malignancy concern, or significant comorbidities. We defined "missed opportunities" as cases eligible for LCBDE wherein ERCP was chosen instead. Median LOS (days) was compared between groups.
resultsA total of 87 patients underwent LC plus LCBDE or ERCP. LCBDE was performed in 38% (n = 33, LOS = 2). ERCP with appropriate justification was performed in 25% (n = 22, LOS = 4.5) due to severe acute cholangitis (15%, n = 13), concern for malignancy (6%, n = 5), surgeon judgment (3%, n = 3), severe pancreatitis (1%, n = 1), severe comorbidities (1%, n = 1), patient preference (1%, n = 1), and diagnostic uncertainty (2%, n = 2). "Missed opportunities" represented the remaining 37% (n = 32, LOS = 3) due to: surgeon consulted after ERCP (18%, n = 16), patient transferred for ERCP only (5%, n = 4), surgeon not LCBDE trained (2%, n = 2), unavailable operating room (1%, n = 1), and unclear reasons (10%, n = 9).
conclusionsOur potential LCBDE utilization rate was 75%. Most ERCP cases represented "missed opportunities" for LCBDE despite our robust LCBDE adoption. "Missed opportunities" had a significantly longer median LOS than LCBDE (3 vs. 2 days, p = 0.048). Efforts to optimize LCBDE utilization could significantly reduce LOS. The highest yield quality improvement opportunity may be to optimize ERCP/LC referral patterns. The 10% of unclear "missed opportunities" cases require additional investigation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40935940What 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.