ArticleSurgical endoscopy2026
Preoperative difficulty assessment of laparoscopic cholecystectomy after treatment for choledocholithiasis.
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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLaparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) has been associated with increased operative difficulty; however, the optimal timing of LC remains controversial. This study evaluated operative outcomes and surgical difficulty of LC after ERCP in patients with gallstones and concomitant choledocholithiasis, with a particular focus on surgical timing.
methodsWe retrospectively reviewed patients who underwent LC after ERCP for choledocholithiasis. Difficult cholecystectomy was defined as the need for a bailout procedure, including conversion to open surgery or subtotal cholecystectomy, operative time > 180 min, or intraoperative blood loss ≥ 300 mL. Patients were classified according to the ERCP-LC interval as early (≤ 14 days), middle (15-60 days), or late (≥ 61 days). Operative outcomes were compared, and logistic regression analysis was performed to identify predictors of difficult cholecystectomy.
resultsAmong 1008 patients who underwent LC, 193 underwent preoperative ERCP. Forty-nine patients (25.4%) met the criteria for difficult cholecystectomy. The incidence was significantly higher in the middle group (33.0%) than in the early (7.7%, P = 0.036) and late groups (15.4%, P = 0.008). Postoperative complication rates did not differ among the groups; however, the late group had a higher incidence of recurrent biliary complications between ERCP and surgery. Multivariate analysis identified age ≥ 60 years, male sex, acute cholecystitis, and an ERCP-LC interval of 15-60 days as independent risk factors for surgical difficulty. Compared with the early and late groups, the 15-60-day interval was associated with increased odds of difficult cholecystectomy (OR 6.29 and 2.61, respectively).
conclusionsAn ERCP-LC interval of 15-60 days is associated with increased surgical difficulty. Surgeons should consider both surgical timing and interval biliary complications and be prepared to perform bailout procedures when necessary.
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.