Observational studySurgical endoscopy2026
Transcystic papillary balloon dilatation vs. laparoscopic choledochoscopy for choledocholithiasis: a retrospective observational propensity score-matched cohort study.
Observational study 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSingle-stage management of choledocholithiasis during laparoscopic cholecystectomy can be performed using transcystic papillary balloon dilatation (TCPBD) or laparoscopic choledochoscopy (LCC). Direct comparative data between intraoperative clearance techniques remain limited.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective single-center observational cohort study of 132 consecutive adult patients undergoing documented one-stage minimally invasive treatment for choledocholithiasis between January 2020 and January 2026. Ninety-three patients underwent TCPBD and 39 underwent LCC. The primary endpoint was procedural success, defined as complete duct clearance during the index procedure without conversion, biliary drainage, retained stones requiring postoperative ERCP, or other additional duct-clearance procedures. Secondary endpoints included overall and major complications, postoperative pancreatitis, reoperation, conversion, operative time, and hospital length of stay. Propensity score matching was performed using age, body mass index, stone diameter, and acute calculous cholecystitis.
resultsProcedural success was achieved in 89/93 TCPBD patients (95.7%) and 36/39 LCC patients (92.3%) (OR 1.85, 95% CI 0.40-8.70; RD 3.4, 95% CI - 4.6 to 16.3; p = 0.421). Overall complications occurred in 9.7% versus 7.7% (OR 1.29, 95% CI 0.33-5.03; RD 2.0, 95% CI - 11.4 to 11.2; p = 1.000). Mild postoperative pancreatitis occurred in 4.3% versus 5.1% of patients. TCPBD patients were older, had higher body mass index, larger stones, and more frequent acute calculous cholecystitis. Postoperative length of stay was longer after TCPBD in the unmatched and adjusted analyses (IRR 1.47, 95% CI 1.08-2.00; p = 0.014), but this difference was attenuated after propensity score matching. Wide confidence intervals limit inference for uncommon outcomes.
conclusionsIn this retrospective non-randomized cohort, no statistically significant differences in duct-clearance success or morbidity were detected between TCPBD and LCC. Technique selection should remain individualized according to patient factors, biliary anatomy, stone characteristics, and available expertise. Prospective comparative studies are warranted.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42536090What 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.