ArticleBMC gastroenterology2026
Two minimally invasive surgical approaches for the treatment of common bile duct stones with gallbladder stones: a retrospective study.
Article in BMC gastroenterology, 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the clinical outcomes of laparoscopic trans-cystic common bile duct exploration combined with cholecystectomy (LTCBDE+LC) versus endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography combined with laparoscopic cholecystectomy (ERCP+LC) in the treatment of gallbladder stones combined with common bile duct stones.
methodsA retrospective analysis was conducted on 72 patients (29 in the LTCBDE+LC group and 43 in the ERCP+LC group) admitted to Nanchuan Hospital Affiliated to Chongqing Medical University from February 2023 to July 2024. Intraoperative and postoperative indicators, including operative time, intraoperative blood loss, hospital stay, cost, liver function recovery, and complications, were compared between the two groups.
resultsThe LTCBDE+LC group demonstrated a significantly shorter hospital stay (8.69±3.19 days vs. 11.53±3.57 days, P<0.01) and significantly lower cost (29,842±7,954 CNY vs. 38,106±10,307 CNY, P<0.01), while preserving Oddi sphincter function. The ERCP+LC group had a significantly shorter operative time (140.23±42.88 min vs. 195.00±67.08 min, P<0.01) and a more significant reduction in postoperative ALT and AST levels (P<0.05). There was no statistically significant difference in the complication rates between the two groups.
conclusionLTCBDE+LC offers advantages in reducing hospitalization duration, cost, and preserving physiological function, whereas ERCP+LC is more suitable for cases requiring rapid biliary decompression. Surgical strategies should be individualized based on patient characteristics and available technical resources.
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.