ReviewFrontiers in surgery2025
Management of common bile duct stones: a comprehensive review.
Review in Frontiers in surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Laparoscopic transcystic common bile duct exploration via a cystic duct remnant for post-cholecystectomy residual choledocholithiasis: a case report.Journal of surgical case reports · 2026Article
- Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration and primary suture versus ERCP combined with laparoscopic cholecystectomy for choledocholithiasis: a retrospective comparative study.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
CBD stones impose significant morbidity and cost. This review compares the efficacy and safety of endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) and laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) and summarizes emerging techniques and remaining controversies. While EST remains a cornerstone for rapid stone extraction, particularly in high-risk surgical candidates, its association with post-procedural pancreatitis and long-term sphincter dysfunction underscores the need for judicious patient selection. Conversely, LCBDE emerges as a compelling alternative, offering superior complete stone clearance rates for larger or complex stones, reduced post-procedural pancreatitis, and the unique advantage of direct biliary tree visualization. However, its technical demands and bile leak risk necessitate standardized training protocols and institutional expertise. The review further explores cutting-edge adjunctive therapies, including SpyGlass cholangioscopy for impacted stones, extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) for large calculi, and artificial intelligence-driven procedural planning, which collectively herald a new era of precision medicine in biliary surgery. Notably, hybrid approaches such as intraoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) demonstrate promising outcomes in reducing hospitalization and postoperative complications, albeit requiring multidisciplinary team coordination. Despite these advances, critical knowledge gaps persist regarding long-term functional outcomes of EST, cost-effectiveness of emerging technologies, and optimal management of anatomically complex cases. The lack of robust randomized trials comparing EST and LCBDE in diverse patient cohorts limits contemporary guideline development, underscoring the urgent need for high-quality comparative effectiveness research. This review synthesizes current evidence to advocate for a personalized, algorithmic approach to CBD stones management, balancing procedural risks, stone characteristics, and institutional capabilities. By highlighting translational research opportunities and unmet clinical needs, it provides a roadmap for advancing minimally invasive biliary surgery while challenging the global hepatobiliary community to prioritize patient-centered innovation and rigorous outcomes research.
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.