SynthesisSurgical endoscopy2020
Laparoendoscopic rendezvous versus ERCP followed by laparoscopic cholecystectomy in the management of cholecystocholedocholithiasis: a systemic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Surgical endoscopy, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Efficacy and safety of EUS-guided Rendezvous after failed ERCP. Retrospective comparison in malignant versus benign biliary disease.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Gallstones and common bile duct stones management: Single-stageWorld journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2025Article
- Laparoendoscopic Rendezvous: An Effective and Safe Approach in the Management of Cholecysto-Choledocholithiasis in Selected Patients.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Comparative analysis of minimally invasive approaches for gallbladder and common bile duct stones: combined endoscopic techniques vs. ERCP with laparoscopic cholecystectomy.Frontiers in surgery · 2025Article
- The Safety and Cost Analysis of Outpatient Laparoendoscopy in the Treatment of Cholecystocholedocholithiasis: A Retrospective Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Single stage laparoscopic cholecystectomy with intraoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography for cholecysto-choledocholithiasis. Lesson learnt from the COVID-19 pandemic.Frontiers in surgery · 2024Article
- Article
- Rendezvous procedure for choledocholithiasis in a Canadian rural surgical service.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2023Article
- Current management of concomitant cholelithiasis and common bile duct stones.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2023Review
- One-stage approach to cholecystocholedocholithiasis treatment: a feasible surgical strategy for emergency settings and frail patients.Surgical endoscopy · 2022Article
- Comparison of different time intervals between laparoscopic cholecystectomy to endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography for patients with cholecystolithiasis complicated by choledocholithiasis.Frontiers in surgery · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe ideal management for patients with cholecystocholedocholithiasis is still controversial. Laparoendoscopic rendezvous (LERV), combined with laparoscopy and endoscopy, is a novel and attractive technique. The aim of this research was to compare LERV with traditional two-stage management, preoperative ERCP and laparoscopic cholecystectomy (ERCP + LC), for treating patients with cholecystocholedocholithiasis.
methodFour databases, the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, and Medline, all updated to through September 2019, were searched to identify comparative studies on LERV versus ERCP + LC for treating cholecystocholedocholithiasis. Total operative time, successful common bile duct (CBD) stone clearance, postoperative morbidity, conversion to other procedures, and length of hospital stay were evaluated. Pooled data were measured by odds ratios (ORs) and mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
resultsEight studies with a total of 1061 patients were included in this meta-analysis, including 542 patients who received LERV and 519 patients who received ERCP + LC. There was no significant difference between the two groups regarding successful CBD stone clearance (OR 2.20, P = 0.10), postoperative bleeding (OR 0.67, P = 0.37), postoperative cholangitis (OR 0.66, P = 0.53), postoperative bile leak (OR 0.87, P = 0.81), or conversion to other procedures (OR 0.75, P = 0.62). The total operative time was longer in the LERV group (MD = 44.93, P < 0.00001), while LERV was associated with less postoperative pancreatitis than the two-stage management group (OR 0.26, P = 0.0003). The incidence of overall morbidity was lower in the LERV group than in the two-stage management group (OR 0.41, P < 0.0001), and the LERV group had a shorter hospital stay (MD = - 3.52, P < 0.00001).
conclusionLERV is equivalent to traditional two-stage procedures in terms of CBD stone clearance and conversion, with less pancreatitis, lower overall morbidity, and shorter hospital stay but longer operation time. More clinical trials are needed to determine the best treatment for patients in different conditions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32533356What 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.