ArticleSurgical endoscopy2025
Project interpret cholangiogram at the SAGES 2024 Education & Innovation Center: skill deficiency in bile duct injury recognition among surgical residents.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBile duct injuries (BDI) remain a rare but dreaded complication of laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). Proposed solutions to reduce BDI involve increased use of cholangiograms in patients with ambiguous anatomy. One explanation for the underutilization of intraoperative cholangiograms (IOC) is an unfamiliarity in interpreting cholangiograms, particularly amongst surgical trainees. We aim to gauge the current confidence levels and knowledge state of interpreting cholangiograms of surgeons at all levels of training.
methodsParticipants were screened based on their SAGES 2024 Annual Conference attendance and completed the "Cholangiogram Quiz" at a station in the SAGES Education & Innovation Center. Data were collected on training background, and confidence in identifying IOC findings. Participants (n = 88, surgical residents, fellows and attendings) completed eighteen multiple choice questions on interpreting a cholangiogram.
resultsOverall quiz scores and confidence in interpreting IOC increased with level of training (p < 0.001). Out of normal IOC, aberrant ducts, BDI, common bile duct calculi, and filling defects, PGY1-5 residents were least confident identifying aberrant ducts, followed by BDI. PGY1-3 residents performed worse than attendings on questions on BDI (p < 0.001). Differences in quiz performance by training levels did not reach statistical significance for any other topic tested. Better quiz performance was directly correlated to more frequent use of IOC (p < 0.001). Higher confidence was associated with better quiz performance for all participants (p = 0.006). Confidence interpreting normal IOC and BDI on cholangiogram were directly correlated to quiz performance on these topics (normal IOC: p = 0.005, BDI: p = 0.047).
conclusionsParticipants with more advanced training, and who more frequently utilize IOC performed better on our quiz. Compared to other findings seen on IOC, residents failed to identify BDI. Surgical residents would benefit from targeted educational interventions to bolster confidence and improve accuracy in identifying BDI on IOC.
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.