ArticleSurgical endoscopy2026
Clinical outcomes of immediate, 24-h, and 24-72-h laparoscopic cholecystectomy after endoscopic stone clearance: a matched cohort analysis.
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
objectiveThis study aimed to systematically compare the perioperative outcomes of patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) at three specific intervals following endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) for choledocholithiasis: immediate (3-6 h), 24-h, and 24-72-h. A propensity score-matched (PSM) cohort analysis was utilized to minimize potential selection bias.
methodsA retrospective analysis was conducted on 200 patients treated between January 2021 and December 2025. Patients were categorized into Immediate (3-6 h, n = 45), 24-h (n = 49), and 24-72-h (n = 106) LC groups. To control for confounders, sequential 1:1 nearest-neighbor propensity score matching was performed based on demographics, comorbidities, clinical presentation, stone characteristics, and preoperative laboratory values, yielding 84 well-matched patients (n = 25, 21, and 38 per group, respectively). Perioperative outcomes, postoperative complications, laboratory changes (Δ), and length of stay, were compared among the matched groups.
resultsAfter PSM, baseline characteristics were similar across groups (P > 0.05). The Immediate group had significantly shorter operative time (P = 0.043), Calot's triangle dissection time (P < 0.001), and less intraoperative blood loss (P = 0.036) versus the 24-72‑h group. On postoperative day 1, the Immediate group showed lower absolute serum amylase (AMY, P = 0.006), alanine aminotransferase (ALT, P = 0.007), and γ‑glutamyl transferase (GGT, P = 0.016). However, change‑from‑baseline (ΔAMY, ΔALT, ΔGGT) did not differ significantly (all P > 0.05), indicating equivalent physiological recovery. The Immediate group had a lower incidence of hyperamylasemia (P = 0.019), while acute pancreatitis rates were similar (P = 0.481). Total hospital stay was shorter in the Immediate group (P = 0.002), but postoperative stay did not differ significantly (P = 0.081).
conclusionImmediate LC (3-6 h) following ERCP is a safe and efficient strategy. This "extreme-early window" facilitates anatomical dissection before inflammatory changes become restrictive. The significantly reduced total hospital stay stems from clinical process optimization rather than accelerated physiological recovery. Therefore, immediate LC should be recommended as the preferred clinical pathway for eligible patients.
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.