Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/ British Journal of S...arrow_drop_down
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/
British Journal of Surgery
Article . 2014 . Peer-reviewed
License: OUP Standard Publication Reuse
Data sources: Crossref
versions View all 2 versions
addClaim

Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration

Authors: D S Y, Chan; P A, Jain; A, Khalifa; R, Hughes; A L, Baker;

Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration

Abstract

Abstract Background Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) is a safe and effective single-stage treatment for choledocholithiasis in the elective setting. The outcomes after LCBDE in the emergency setting are unknown. The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes following elective and emergency LCBDE for choledocholithiasis. Methods Details of all patients who underwent LCBDE for choledocholithiasis between August 2003 and August 2013 were analysed retrospectively. The primary outcome measure was common bile duct (CBD) stone clearance rate. Secondary outcome measures were conversion rate, morbidity, mortality and length of hospital stay. Results Some 215 consecutive patients (57 male; median age 65 (range 14–92) years) underwent LCBDE. Some 121 procedures were performed electively and 94 as an emergency. Forty-five patients (48 per cent) presented with obstructive jaundice or cholangitis in the emergency LCBDE group compared with 15 (12·4 per cent) in the elective group (P < 0·001). The CBD stone clearance rate was similarly high in both groups (96 versus 96·7 per cent respectively; P = 0·557). There were no significant differences in conversion rate (6 versus 4·1 per cent), morbidity (5 versus 6·6 per cent), mortality (2 versus 0 per cent) or median length of stay (3 days) between groups. Two patients died, both following emergency LCBDE. Conclusion LCBDE can be performed safely and effectively in both elective and emergency settings.

Related Organizations
Keywords

Adult, Aged, 80 and over, Common Bile Duct, Male, Adolescent, Operative Time, Length of Stay, Middle Aged, Young Adult, Choledocholithiasis, Treatment Outcome, Elective Surgical Procedures, Humans, Female, Laparoscopy, Emergency Treatment, Aged, Retrospective Studies

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    31
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Top 10%
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Top 10%
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Top 10%
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
31
Top 10%
Top 10%
Top 10%
hybrid