ArticleSurgical endoscopy2022
One-stage versus two-stage management for acute cholecystitis associated with common bile duct stones: a retrospective cohort study.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Primary duct closure versus T-tube drainage after laparoscopic common bile duct exploration: a meta-analysis.Journal of Zhejiang University. Science. B · 2021Pooled it
- Sequential comparison of single-stage laparoscopic common bile duct exploration combined with cholecystectomy.Updates in surgery · 2026Article
- Primary closure with self-disengaging biliary stent following laparoscopic CBD exploration in normal-diameter ducts: a propensity score matching study.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- TAVAC: choledochoscopy disposable scopes, and the single-stage vs. two-stage approach to choledocholithiasis.Surgical endoscopy · 2023Article
- Current management of concomitant cholelithiasis and common bile duct stones.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2023Review
- Port Site Consequences After Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy Using an Open Versus Closed Approach of Pneumoperitoneum.Cureus · 2022Article
- Laparo-endoscopic management of chole-choledocholithiasis: Rendezvous or intraoperative ERCP? A single tertiary care center experience.Frontiers in surgery · 2022Article
- The Treatment of Cholecystitis and Cholelithiasis by Tibetan Medicine.Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM · 2021Review
- The i-EUS consensus on EUS-guided gallbladder drainage: A 3-step modified Delphi approach.Endoscopic ultrasoundArticle
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBoth one-stage [laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) plus laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE)] and two-stage [endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) followed by sequential LC] approaches are effective treatment for concomitant common bile duct (CBD) stones and gallstone. Although many studies compared one-stage with two-stage surgical approach for cholecysto-choledocholithiasis, there are very few studies compared the two management strategies for acute cholecystitis (AC) associated with CBD stones.
methodsBetween January 2014 and December 2019, patients with concomitant AC and CBD stones proposed to early surgery were retrospectively studied. The patients were scheduled to undergo either the one-stage [LCBDE and LC (LCBDE+LC) were undertaken at the same operation] or two-stage [preoperative ERCP for CBD stone clearance was followed by LC 1-3 days later (pre-ERCP+LC)] procedure. The success rate of complete stone clearance, procedure-related complication, hospital stay, hospitalization charges and later biliary complications were compared between the two groups.
resultsSixty patients were included in the study, 28 in the one-stage group and 32 in the two-stage group. There was no significant difference in the success rate of complete stone clearance (96.4% vs. 93.8%, P = 1.000), complication rate (10.7% vs. 9.4%, P = 1.000), incidence of pancreatitis (0 vs. 6.3%, P = 0.494) or length of hospital stay (12 ± 5 vs. 11 ± 4 days, P = 0.393) between the two groups.
conclusionFor patients with concomitant AC and choledocholithiasis proposed to early surgery, both the one-stage (LCBDE+LC) and two-stage (pre-ERCP+LC) approaches were acceptable and broadly comparable in achieving clearance of CBD stones.
Indexed as
Identifiers
33788028What 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.