SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2006
Surgical versus endoscopic treatment of bile duct stones.
Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 114 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
114 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Laparoscopic-endoscopic rendezvous versus preoperative endoscopic sphincterotomy in people undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy for stones in the gallbladder and bile duct.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Transcystic or transductal stone extraction during single-stage treatment of choledochocystolithiasis: a systematic review.World journal of surgery · 2014Pooled it
- Surgical versus endoscopic treatment of bile duct stones.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2013Pooled it
- Preoperative versus intraoperative endoscopic sphincterotomy in patients with gallbladder and suspected common bile duct stones: system review and meta-analysis.Surgical endoscopy · 2013Pooled it
- Primary closure versus T-tube drainage in laparoscopic common bile duct exploration: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2012Pooled it
- SAGES guidelines for the clinical application of laparoscopic biliary tract surgery.Surgical endoscopy · 2010Guideline
- Treatment of common bile duct stones discovered during cholecystectomy.Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2008Pooled it
- Two institutes' experience in laparoendoscopic "rendezvous" technique for patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy for stones in the gallbladder and bile duct: a prospective randomized comparative clinical trial.Updates in surgery · 2024Trial
- Comparison between intraoperative cholangiography and choledochoscopy for ductal clearance in laparoscopic CBD exploration: a prospective randomized study.Surgical endoscopy · 2015Trial
- Trial
- ERCP and laparoscopic cholecystectomy in a combined (one-step) procedure: a random comparison to the standard (two-step) procedure.Surgical endoscopy · 2013Trial
- A prospective randomized trial comparing two-stage versus single-stage management of patients with gallstone disease and common bile duct stones.Surgical endoscopy · 2010Trial
- Permanent stenting in "unextractable" common bile duct stones in high risk patients. A prospective randomized study comparing two different stents.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2008Trial
- Article
- Surgical Management of Choledocholithiasis in a Patient After Bariatric Surgery at a Rural Hospital.Cureus · 2026Article
- Article
- Article
- Comparison of one-stage treatment versus two-stage treatment for the management of patients with common bile duct stones: A meta-analysis.Frontiers in surgery · 2023Review
54 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background10% to 18% of patients undergoing cholecystectomy for gallstones have common bile duct (CBD) stones. Treatment options for these stones include pre- or post-operative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) or open or laparoscopic surgery.
objectivesTo systematically review the management of CBD stones by four approaches: (1) ERCP versus open surgical bile duct clearance. (2) Pre-operative ERCP versus laparoscopic bile duct clearance. (3) Post-operative ERCP versus laparoscopic bile duct clearance. (4) ERCP versus laparoscopic bile duct clearance in patients with previous cholecystectomy. SEARCH STRATEGY: We systematically searched key relevant electronic databases, bibliographies of relevant papers, and abstracts of relevant subspecialty meetings until November 2005. SELECTION CRITERIA: The quality of included trials was assessed by adequacy of allocation sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding, and follow-up. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Published and unpublished data relevant to 12 predefined outcome measures were used to conduct fixed- and random-effects models meta-analyses, with exploration of heterogeneity and use of sensitivity and subgroup analysis where required. MAIN
resultsThirteen trials randomised 1351 patients. Eight trials (n = 760) compared ERCP with open surgical clearance, three (n = 425) compared pre-operative ERCP with laparoscopic clearance, and two (n = 166) compared post-operative ERCP with laparoscopic clearance. There were no trials of ERCP versus laparoscopic clearance in patients without an intact gallbladder. Methodology was considered adequate in at least two of three assessable fields in ten trials. A significantly increased number of total procedures (including for complications) per patient was seen in the ERCP arms in all three comparisons with weighted mean differences of 0.62 (95% CI 0.15 to 1.09), 0.96 (95% CI 0.96 to 0.96), and 1.09 (95% CI 0.93 to 1.24), respectively. ERCP was less successful than open surgery in CBD stone clearance (Peto OR 2.89, 95% CI 1.81 to 4.61) with a tendency towards higher mortality (risk difference 1%, 95% CI -1% to 4%). Laparoscopic CBD stone clearance was as efficient as pre- (Peto OR 1.00, CI 0.53 to 1.80) and post-operative ERCP (OR 2.27, 95% CI 0.37 to 13.9) and with no significant difference in morbidity and mortality. Laparoscopic trials universally reported shorter hospital stays in surgical arms. Insufficient data were reported for cost analysis. AUTHORS'
conclusionsIn the era of open cholecystectomy, open bile duct surgery was superior to ERCP in achieving CBD stone clearance. In the laparoscopic era, data are close to excluding a significant difference between laparoscopic and ERCP clearance of CBD stones. The use of ERCP necessitates increased number of procedures per patient.
Indexed as
Identifiers
16625577What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.