Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24493296›Full record

Trial reportJournal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract2014

Single-stage vs. two-stage management for concomitant gallstones and common bile duct stones: a prospective randomized trial with long-term follow-up.

Guoqian Ding, Wang Cai, Mingfang Qin

Registry-linked trialAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04801238 (preGallstep), which is not on this map. Cited by 55 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
55citing papers in PubMed, 9 pooled it
5.1field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT04801238 naunknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2021, after this paper: background citation

preGallstep: One-step Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy, Common Bile Duct Exploration and Stone Extraction Versus Two-step Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiography and Stone Extraction Plus Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy for Common Bile Duct Stones

TypeinterventionalSponsorLars Tue SorensenRan2021 to 2024Enrolled150ConditionsPancreatitis, Cholangitis, Cholecystitis, GallstoneArmsLCBDE + LC, ERC + LC
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

55 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 117 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Guideline
  4. Pooled it
  5. Guideline
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Guoqian DingTianjin Medical University, Tianjin, China.
Wang Cai
Mingfang Qin
Tianjin Nankai Hospital · CNTianjin Medical University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimThe preferred approach to the management of common bile duct (CBD) stones is uncertain, with single-stage laparoscopic cholecystectomy and CBD exploration vs. two-stage preoperative endoscopic CBD clearance followed by laparoscopic cholecystectomy being debated. To address this, a prospective randomized study which compared these two management strategies was undertaken.

methodsBetween Jan 2002 and Dec 2005, patients with gallstones and common bile duct stones diagnosed by preoperative ultrasonography and magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography were randomized to single-stage vs. two-stage treatment. In a single-stage group, laparoscopic cholecystectomy and CBD exploration were undertaken at the same operation, whereas in a two-stage group, endoscopic stone clearance was followed by laparoscopic cholecystectomy 2-5 days later. Early treatment success and complications and longer-term follow-up for the two groups were compared.

resultsTwo hundred twenty-one patients were enrolled in the trial, 110 in the single-stage group and 111 in the two-stage group. There was no significant difference in the success rate of CBD clearance (93.6 vs. 94.6%, p = 0.76) or the complication rates (3.6 vs. 5.1%, p = 0.527) between the groups. However, at longer-term follow-up, recurrent CBD stones were seen more often in the two-stage group (9.5 vs. 2.1%, p = 0.037).

conclusionThe single-stage and two-stage approaches were equally effective in achieving initial clearance of CBD stones. However, recurrent CBD stones occurred more commonly in patients who had undergone two-stage treatment with initial endoscopic stone clearance, followed by laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Indexed as

Cholangiopancreatography, Endoscopic RetrogradeCholecystectomy, LaparoscopicSphincterotomy, EndoscopicAgedFemaleFollow-Up StudiesGallstonesHumansMaleMiddle AgedProspective StudiesRecurrenceTime FactorsTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID24493296
OpenAlexW2082350395

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.