ArticleJournal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract2018
Inpatient Choledocholithiasis Requiring ERCP and Cholecystectomy: Outcomes of a Combined Single Inpatient Procedure Versus Separate-Session Procedures.
Article in Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Minimally invasive surgical strategies for gallbladder stones with concomitant common bile duct stones: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.BMC surgery · 2026Pooled it
- One-Stage Intraoperative ERCP combined with Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy Versus Two-Stage Preoperative ERCP Followed by Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy in the Management of Gallbladder with Common Bile Duct Stones: A Meta-analysis.Advances in therapy · 2024Pooled it
- Two minimally invasive surgical approaches for the treatment of common bile duct stones with gallbladder stones: a retrospective study.BMC gastroenterology · 2026Article
- Timing of laparoscopic cholecystectomy after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in cholelithiasis patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Annals of hepato-biliary-pancreatic surgery · 2023Review
- Endoscopic Management of Acute Biliopancreatic Disorders.Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesSeparate-session endoscopic retrograde cholangiography (ERCP) and laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is the usual method for management of inpatient choledocholithiasis. Our goal was to compare single operative-session LC and ERCP to a multi-session approach for both the same hospitalization and within 30 days after; there is limited data comparing the three groups.
methodsA retrospective review on inpatients with choledocholithiasis that underwent ERCP and LC was performed. Single operative-session ERCP + LC (SOS group) and separate hospitalization ERCP + LC (DH group) were compared against the control cohort: separate-session ERCP + LC performed during the same hospitalization (SH group).
resultsAmong the 214 cases, 37 (17%) had LC + ERCP performed under a single operative session (SOS), 130 (60.7%) cases had LC + ERCP performed in separate operative sessions during the same hospitalization (SH), and 47 (22%) cases had LC + ERCP performed in different hospitalizations, within 30 days (DH). There was no statistically significant difference in efficacy or adverse events. The SOS group had a statistically significant mean shorter length of hospital stay as compared to the SH and DH groups (5.46 vs 7.15 vs 9.38; p = 0.05 and 0.02). There was a statistically significant reduction in the total cost of care in the SOS group versus the SH group ($59,221 vs $75, 808; p = 0.007).
conclusionThe SOS approach is safe, efficacious, and cost-efficient when compared to separate operative sessions. This approach can be considered in situations where it is preferable for the patient to undergo a single session of anesthesia, without compromising technical success and safety.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.