Users Online : 929 About us |  Subscribe |  e-Alerts  | Feedback | Login   
Journal of Minimal Access Surgery Current Issue | Archives | Ahead Of Print Journal of Minimal Access Surgery
           Print this page Email this page   Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size 
 ¤   Next article
 ¤   Previous article
 ¤   Table of Contents

 ¤   Similar in PUBMED
 ¤  Search Pubmed for
 ¤  Search in Google Scholar for
 ¤Related articles
 ¤   Citation Manager
 ¤   Access Statistics
 ¤   Reader Comments
 ¤   Email Alert *
 ¤   Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded184    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal


Year : 2020  |  Volume : 16  |  Issue : 3  |  Page : 206-214

Meta-analysis of single-stage versus two-staged management for concomitant gallstones and common bile duct stones

1 Department of Hepatobiliary Surgery, Pingdu City People's Hospital, Weifang Medical College, Qingdao City, Shandong Province, China
2 Qingdao Central Hospital, Qingdao City, Shandong Province, China

Correspondence Address:
Mr. Zhi-Qing Li
Department of Hepatobiliary Surgery, Pingdu City Peoplefs Hospital, Weifang Medical College, No. 112, Yangzhou Road, Pingdu City, Shandong Province, 266700
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/jmas.JMAS_146_18

Rights and Permissions

Objective: The purpose of this article was to compare the effectiveness and safety of single-stage (laparoscopic cholecystectomy [LC] plus laparoscopic common bile duct exploration [LCBDE]) with two-stage (LC plus endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP)/endoscopic sphincterotomy [EST]) in management for concomitant gallstones and common bile duct (CBD) stones. Materials and Methods: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing outcomes following single-stage with two-stage management for concomitant gallstones and CBD stones published from 1990 to 2017 in PubMed, Embase and the Science Citation Index. The primary outcomes were stone clearance from the CBD, post-operative morbidity and mortality. The secondary outcomes were retained stone, conversion to other procedures, length of hospital stay and total operating time. Pooled risk ratio (RR) or weighted mean differences (WMD) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were calculated using either the fixed effects model or random effects model. Results: Eleven RCTs studies were included in this analysis. These studies included a total of 1338 patients: 666 underwent LC + LCBDE and 672 underwent LC + ERCP/EST. The meta-analysis showed that no significant difference was noted between the two groups regarding CBD stone clearance (RR: 1.06; 95% CI: 0.99–1.14; P= 0.12), post-operative morbidity (RR: 1.03; 95% CI: 0.79–1.34; P= 0.81), mortality (RR: 0.30; 95% CI: 0.06–1.41; P= 0.13), retained stone (RR: 0.91; 95% CI: 0.57–1.47; P= 0.71), conversion to other procedures (RR: 0.80; 95% CI: 0.55–0.16; P= 0.23), length of hospital stay (WMD: 1.24, 95% CI: 3.57–1.09, P= 0.30), total operating time (WMD: 25.42, 95% CI: 22.38–73.22, P= 0.30). Conclusion: Single-stage is efficient and safe in the treatment of patients with concomitant gallstones and CBD stones while avoiding the second procedure. In selected patients, single-stage management for concomitant gallstones and CBD stones might be considered as the preferred approach. However, the findings have to be carefully interpreted due to the existence of heterogeneity, in addition, patient's condition, operator's experience also should be taken into account in making treatment decisions.


Print this article     Email this article

© 2004 Journal of Minimal Access Surgery
Published by Wolters Kluwer - Medknow
Online since 15th August '04