ArticleBMC surgery2026
Interrupted suture vs continuous suture for primary closure of the common bile duct after laparoscopic common bile duct exploration in patients with choledocholithiasis.
Article in BMC surgery, 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeWe performed the present study to compare the interrupted suture technique and the continuous suture technique after laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) for choledocholithiasis.
methodsClinical data from patients with choledocholithiasis who underwent LCBDE were retrospectively collected. Patients were divided into an interrupted suture group and a continuous suture group on the basis of the method used to suture the common bile duct. The preoperative, intraoperative and postoperative parameters of the interrupted suture group were compared with those of the continuous suture group.
resultsThe baseline characteristics of the continuous suture group did not significantly differ from those of the interrupted suture group. Compared with the interrupted suture technique, the continuous suture technique was superior in terms of operation time (P = 0.006). The postoperative outcomes in the continuous group did not significantly differ from those in the interrupted group. Furthermore, we performed a subanalysis limited to LCBDE procedures performed by high-volume surgeons, revealing that it took less time to perform LCBDE with continuous primary suturing (P < 0.001).
conclusionFor patients with choledocholithiasis who underwent LCBDE, the continuous suture technique did not significantly differ from the interrupted suture technique in terms of postoperative complications; however, compared with the interrupted suture technique, the continuous suture technique was associated with a significantly shorter operation time. Thus, the continuous suture technique shows comparable safety and effectiveness for patients with choledocholithiasis who are undergoing LCBDE with a shorter operation time, which, however, should be verified by prospective RCT studies taking surgeon experience into consideration.
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.