Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 491

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Intraoperative Cholangiography and Risk of Common Bile Duct Injury During Cholecystectomy

Flum, David R., Dellinger, E. Patchen, Cheadle, Allen, Chan, Leighton, Koepsell, Thomas·2003·JAMA

Abstract

Context: Intraoperative cholangiography (IOC) may decrease the risk of common bile duct (CBD) injury during cholecystectomy by helping to avoid misidentification of the CBD. Objective: To characterize the relationship of IOC use and CBD injury while controlling for patient and surgeon characteristics. Design, Setting, and Patients: Retrospective nationwide cohort analysis of Medicare patients undergoing cholecystectomy from January 1, 1992, to December 31, 1999. Patients were identified using Current Procedural Terminology codes from the Medicare Part B depository. Common bile duct injury was defined by a second surgical procedure to repair the CBD injury within 1 year of cholecystectomy. Surgeon demographic features were obtained from matching the Medicare Part B data to the American Medical Association Physician Masterfile database. Main Outcome Measure: Frequency of CBD injury in patients who did and did not have IOC performed during cholecystectomy, controlling for patient-level (age, sex, race, and case complexity) and surgeon-level (surgeon's age, sex, race, year of surgical procedure, case order, percentage of IOC use in prior surgical procedures, years in medical practice, board certification, and specialization) factors. Results: The database search identified 1 570 361 cholecystectomies and 7911 CBD injuries (0.5%). Common bile duct injury was found in 2380 (0.39%) of 613 706 patients undergoing cholecystectomy with IOC and in 5531 (0.58%) of 956 655 patients undergoing cholecystectomy without IOC (unadjusted relative risk, 1.49; 95% confidence interval, 1.42-1.57). After controlling for patient-level factors and surgeon-level factors, the risk of injury was increased when IOC was not used (adjusted relative risk, 1.71; 95% confidence interval, 1.38-2.28). While surgeons performing IOCs routinely had a lower rate of CBD injuries than those who did not, this difference disappeared when IOC was not used. Conclusions: In this study of Medicare patients undergoing cholecystectomy in the 1990s, the risk of CBD injury was significantly higher when IOC was not used. Although IOCs may not prevent all CBD injuries, this study suggests that the routine use of IOC may decrease the rate of CBD injury.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jama.289.13.1639

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 491

Metadata

Authors
Flum, D. R., Dellinger, E. P., Cheadle, A., Chan, L., & Koepsell, T.
Venue
JAMA
Published
2003-04-02
Volume
289
Issue
13
Pages
1639
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
OpenAlex
W2038764762
Cited by
491
References
1
FWCI
14.61
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Intraoperative Cholangiography and Risk of Common Bile Duct Injury During Cholecystectomy. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/jama.289.13.1639
The paper
Flum, D. R., Dellinger, E. P., Cheadle, A., Chan, L., & Koepsell, T. (2003). Intraoperative Cholangiography and Risk of Common Bile Duct Injury During Cholecystectomy. JAMA. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.289.13.1639

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.