Two-stagevssingle-stage management for concomitant gallstones and common bile duct stones
Top Cited Papers
Open Access
- 1 January 2012
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Baishideng Publishing Group Inc. in World Journal of Gastroenterology
- Vol. 18 (24), 3156-66
- https://doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v18.i24.3156
Abstract
To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of two-stage vs single-stage management for concomitant gallstones and common bile duct stones. Four databases, including PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and the Science Citation Index up to September 2011, were searched to identify all randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Data were extracted from the studies by two independent reviewers. The primary outcomes were stone clearance from the common bile duct, postoperative morbidity and mortality. The secondary outcomes were conversion to other procedures, number of procedures per patient, length of hospital stay, total operative time, hospitalization charges, patient acceptance and quality of life scores. Seven eligible RCTs [five trials (n = 621) comparing preoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP)/endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) + laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) with LC + laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE); two trials (n = 166) comparing postoperative ERCP/EST + LC with LC + LCBDE], composed of 787 patients in total, were included in the final analysis. The meta-analysis detected no statistically significant difference between the two groups in stone clearance from the common bile duct [risk ratios (RR) = -0.10, 95% confidence intervals (CI): -0.24 to 0.04, P = 0.17], postoperative morbidity (RR = 0.79, 95% CI: 0.58 to 1.10, P = 0.16), mortality (RR = 2.19, 95% CI: 0.33 to 14.67, P = 0.42), conversion to other procedures (RR = 1.21, 95% CI: 0.54 to 2.70, P = 0.39), length of hospital stay (MD = 0.99, 95% CI: -1.59 to 3.57, P = 0.45), total operative time (MD = 12.14, 95% CI: -1.83 to 26.10, P = 0.09). Two-stage (LC + ERCP/EST) management clearly required more procedures per patient than single-stage (LC + LCBDE) management. Single-stage management is equivalent to two-stage management but requires fewer procedures. However, patient's condition, operator's expertise and local resources should be taken into account in making treatment decisions.Keywords
This publication has 46 references indexed in Scilit:
- A prospective randomized trial comparing two-stage versus single-stage management of patients with gallstone disease and common bile duct stonesSurgical Endoscopy, 2010
- Laparoscopic Common Bile Duct ExplorationAnnals of Surgery, 2008
- Meta-analysis of endoscopy and surgery versus surgery alone for common bile duct stones with the gallbladder in situBritish Journal of Surgery, 2006
- Feasibility of laparoscopic common bile duct exploration in a rural centreAnz Journal of Surgery, 2004
- A Prospective Study of Common Bile Duct Calculi in Patients Undergoing Laparoscopic CholecystectomyAnnals of Surgery, 2004
- Laparoscopic common bile duct explorationSurgical Endoscopy, 2003
- Laparoscopic Common Bile Duct ExplorationJournal of Laparoendoscopic & Advanced Surgical Techniques, 2001
- Selective operative cholangiography and Perioperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) during laparoscopic cholecystectomySurgical Endoscopy, 2001
- Selective use of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography to facilitate laparoscopic cholecystectomy without cholangiographySurgical Endoscopy, 2001
- Cost-effective management of common bile duct stonesSurgical Endoscopy, 2001