ArticleAmerican journal of translational research2026
Clinical value of laparoscopy combined with choledochoscopy in the treatment of intrahepatic and extrahepatic bile duct stones: a retrospective analysis.
Article in American journal of translational research, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the clinical efficacy, postoperative recovery, and safety of laparoscopy combined with choledochoscopy versus traditional laparotomy for intrahepatic and extrahepatic bile duct stones.
methodsClinical data of 80 patients treated at Wenzhou People's Hospital from January 2022 to December 2024 were retrospectively analyzed. Patients were divided into an observation group (laparoscopy combined with choledochoscopy, n = 42) and a control group (traditional open bile duct exploration, n = 38). Operative parameters, stone clearance, postoperative recovery, complications, and follow-up outcomes were compared.
resultsOperation time was longer in the observation group than in the control group (128.5 ± 32.6 min vs. 98.3 ± 25.4 min, P < 0.001), but intraoperative blood loss was significantly lower (35.4 ± 18.7 mL vs. 42.6 ± 17.3 mL, P < 0.05). No significant differences were found in stone clearance or residual stone rate between groups (both P > 0.05). The observation group showed significantly better outcomes in gastrointestinal function recovery, postoperative ambulation, analgesic use, and hospital stay (all P < 0.01). Total complication rate was lower in the observation group (7.1% vs. 21.1%, P < 0.001). No significant differences were observed in 6-month stone recurrence rate or 3-month liver function between groups (both P > 0.05).
conclusionLaparoscopy combined with choledochoscopy has a slightly longer operation time but offers less intraoperative blood loss, reduced trauma, faster postoperative recovery, and comparable long-term efficacy compared with traditional laparotomy for intrahepatic and extrahepatic bile duct stones.
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.