Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41193912›Full record

SynthesisSurgical endoscopy2025

SAGES-AHPBA 2025: a systematic review and meta-analysis on the surgical management of bile duct injury following cholecystectomy.

Ali Esparham, Elisa C Calabrese, Olivia Ganescu, Sarah Choksi, Kathleen Park, Karan Kumar, Bright Huo, Dena Shehata, Ahmed Abou-Setta, Ivan D Florez and 2 more

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Surgical endoscopy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Ali EsparhamMashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran.
Elisa C CalabreseDepartment of Surgery, University of California-East Bay, Oakland, CA, USA. eclbrs@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0007-0217-7933
Olivia GanescuDivision of General Surgery, McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, QC, Canada.
Sarah ChoksiDepartment of General Surgery, Albany Medical Center, Albany, NY, USA.
Kathleen ParkDepartment of Surgery, Robert Wood Johnson Rutgers University Hospital, New Brunswick, NJ, USA.
Karan KumarDepartment of General Surgery, Nuvance Health, Danbury, CT, USA.
Bright HuoDivision of General Surgery, Department of Surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.
Dena ShehataDepartment of Surgery, Lahey Hospital and Medical Center, Burlington, MA, USA.
Ahmed Abou-SettaDepartment of Community Health Sciences, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada.
Ivan D FlorezDepartment of Pediatrics, University of Antioquia, Medellin, Colombia.
Bethany J SlaterMount Sinai Kravis Children's Hospital, New York, NY, USA.
Kevin El-HayekDepartment of Surgery, The MetroHealth System, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland, OH, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDespite ongoing controversies in the management of bile duct injuries (BDIs), current clinical guidance remains limited. To address this gap, a systematic review and meta-analysis were undertaken to clarify and synthesize the available evidence and inform the development of evidence-based recommendations for a forthcoming guideline by the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES). METHODOLOGY: A systematic review was conducted, incorporating a comprehensive literature search through December 31, 2024, to address four predefined key questions (KQs) regarding the timing of BDI repair, use of minimally invasive surgery for BDI repair, operative vs non-operative management of BDI, and hepaticojejunostomy vs hepaticoduodenostomy for bilioenteric repairs. The review included both randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and comparative observational studies, with meta-analyses performed when appropriate. The review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA 2020 guidelines.

resultsFor KQ1, 8 studies showed early repair was associated with higher reoperation (Odds Ratio (OR): 3.31, 95% CI: 1.56-7.03), stricture (OR: 7.41, 95% CI: 2.07-26.52), and mortality (OR: 2.83, 95% CI: 1.15-6.95) rates compared to late repair. For KQ2, one observational study found no differences between MIS and open repair. For KQ3, non-operative management had higher reoperation (OR: 16.60) and stricture (OR: 2.44) rates compared to operative management. For KQ4, two studies showed no differences between hepaticojejunostomy and hepaticoduodenostomy in stricture or reintervention.

conclusionDelayed repair for BDI was found to reduce reoperation, stricture, and mortality rates compared to early repair. MIS and open repair yield similar outcomes, while operative management outperforms non-operative approaches for major BDIs. Hepaticojejunostomy and hepaticoduodenostomy show comparable results.

Indexed as

Bile DuctsCholecystectomyCholecystectomy, LaparoscopicIntraoperative ComplicationsPostoperative ComplicationsHumansPractice Guidelines as TopicReoperationBile duct injuryEndoscopyHepaticoduodenostomyHepaticojejunostomyInterventional radiologyMeta-analysisSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID41193912

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.