ArticleSurgical endoscopy2026
Laparoscopic primary suture versus T-tube drainage for choledocholithiasis: a comparative analysis of efficacy and safety.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2026. 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundLaparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) is an important surgical treatment for choledocholithiasis; however, the choice between indwelling T-tube placement and primary suture remains controversial. This study aimed to evaluate the safety and feasibility of LCBDE coupled with primary suture using a prospective cohort design, as well as to summarize the key techniques of primary suturing.
methodsPatients with choledocholithiasis who met the inclusion criteria between January 2019 and March 2023 were enrolled. The primary suture group comprised patients who underwent LCBDE with primary closure, while the T-tube drainage group consisted of those who received LCBDE with T-tube drainage. Perioperative data and follow-up outcomes were collected and statistically analyzed for both groups.
resultsOperative time (120.00 [100.00-139.50] vs. 99.00 [85.00-118.50] min; P = 0.000) and postoperative hospital stay (7.00 [5.00-9.00] vs. 5.00 [4.00-6.00] days; P = 0.000) differed significantly between groups. No significant differences were observed in estimated blood loss (40.7 ± 24.1 vs. 41.4 ± 23.7 mL; P = 0.537), conversion rate to laparotomy (2.38% vs. 2.27%; P = 0.918), time to gastrointestinal function recovery (2.1 ± 0.7 vs. 2.0 ± 0.6 days; P = 0.317), or postoperative complication rate (2.92% vs. 3.18%; P = 0.959). During follow-up, one case of common bile duct (CBD) stenosis and one case of extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma occurred in the T-tube group; no such complications were observed in the primary suture group. The rates of residual stones (1.75% vs. 0.45%; P = 0.225) and recurrent stones (1.75% vs. 1.81%; P = 0.980) were without statistical significance.
conclusionIn our grouping situation, LCBDE and primary suture is safer and more feasible than T-tube drainage in operative time and postoperative hospital stay. This conclusion has certain reference value for clinicians to choose the surgical method in laparoscopic surgery for choledocholithiasis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41430465What 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.