ArticleSurgical endoscopy2026
Safety and outcomes of laparoscopic bile duct exploration: a UK-wide multi-centre study (R-ALiCE).
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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
- Erratum issued
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
69 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe optimal management approach for suspected or confirmed bile duct stones (BDS) in patients with symptomatic gallstones remains unclear. This study evaluates outcomes and safety profile of laparoscopic common bile duct exploration and cholecystectomy (LCBDE) from a UK-wide multi-centre study.
methodsThe "Retrospective Audit of Laparoscopic Common Bile Duct Exploration (R-ALiCE)", study involved 18 centres across the UK. Adult patients undergoing LCBDE for BDS between 01/01/2015 and 31/12/2019 were included. Patients who underwent LCBDE for non-stone disease and as part of another operation were excluded from the study.
results1,689 patients (68.2% female, median age: 59 years) were included. The open conversion rate was 5% (n = 84). Trans-cystic LCBDE (TC-LCBDE) was attempted in 71.5% (n = 1207) (success rate, 77.6%, n = 937). Trans-choledochal-LCBDE (TD-LCBDE) was performed in 41% (694), with 28.5% being direct-to-trans-ductal explorations. The TD-LCBDE success rate was 93.4% (n = 648). The bile leak rate was 4.4% (n = 75) (61, 8.8% in TD-LCBDE vs. 14,1.5% in the TC-LCBDE, Odds Ratio = 6.76; 95% CI 3.75-12.19; P < 0.001). The retained stone rate was 4.4% (n = 74) (4.1% in TC-LCBDE vs. 4.8% in TD-LCBDE; P = 0.53). Postoperative pancreatitis occurred in 0.9% (n = 15) (0.8% for TC-LCBDE vs. 1% for TD-LCBDE; P = 0.65). The bile duct stricture rate was 0 at 90-day follow-up. The 30-day readmission rate was 7.5% (n = 127). The median length of stay was 3 days (range 2-7). Overall morbidity and Clavien-Dindo grade ≥ III complications rate were 18.7% (n = 316) and 8.8% (n = 149), respectively. The 30-day mortality rate was 0.4% (n = 7).
conclusionLCBDE is a safe and effective approach for managing BDS, with low rates of severe complications, including bile leak, postoperative pancreatitis, and retained stones. The trans-cystic approach is associated with a lower bile leak rate than the trans-ductal approach.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41530353What 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.