Is Laparoscopic Common Bile Duct Exploration Safe in Patients with Acute Cholangitis Caused by Common Bile Duct Stones? Results of a Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: The traditional method of performing open common bile duct exploration (OCBDE) was replaced by a less invasive procedure known as laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) in elective surgery. But at present, the application of this technique is considered novel and controversial to treat acute cholangitis (AC). The aim of our systematic review was to investigate the safety and efficacy of laparoscopic surgery in patients with AC. Methods: Studies containing information on patients diagnosed with AC who underwent LCBDE were included. A search for relevant articles was carried out, in the Cochrane Library, PubMed, and Google Scholar databases. All studies included in the systematic review were assessed using the Newcastle‐Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale. Results: A total of 10 studies were included. Seven were retrospective and three were prospective. Only one was a randomized controlled trial. There were three studies that compared elective LCBDE and emergency LCBDE. Two studies compared between primary closure and T-tube drainage. Two other studies focused on the comparison between LCBDE and OCBDE. One study examined the comparison of LCBDE and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Another study addressed the issue of conversion in LCBDE. One study compared early and delayed LCBDE. Conversion rates ranged from 0% to 16.92%. Morbidity ranged from 0% to 26.3%, and mortality ranged from 0% to 3.07%. There was no difference in terms of retained, residual, or recurrent stones, bile leak, hemorrhage, and postoperative pancreatitis, and this, comparing the different groups of patients. Bile duct and intestinal injuries as well as biliary stricture were not common. The average length of hospital stays was approximately 5.86 days, ranging from 2 to 11.12 days. Conclusion: The one-stage urgent LCBDE, while subject to debate, proves to be a secure, feasible, approach for managing nonsevere AC.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".