ArticleCureus2026
A Comparative Study of Same-Session Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy (LC) and Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in Cholecystocholedocholithiasis: LC-First Versus ERCP-First Approach.
Article in Cureus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Background Cholecystocholedocholithiasis (CCL) presents significant management challenges. The optimal sequencing of laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) when performed during the same operative session remains controversial. This study compared the efficacy, safety, and clinical outcomes of two same-session approaches: LC-first versus ERCP-first. Patients and methods A retrospective comparative study was conducted at Yemen Germany Hospital, Sana'a, Yemen, between January 2017 and August 2022. A total of 150 patients were included. Group A (n = 80) underwent ERCP-first followed by LC, while Group B (n = 70) underwent LC-first followed by intraoperative ERCP. All procedures were performed by a surgeon-led team with expertise in advanced laparoscopy and therapeutic ERCP. Primary outcomes included successful common bile duct (CBD) stone clearance, operative time, and conversion to open surgery. Secondary outcomes included technical difficulty, complications, hospital stay, and cost. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05. Results Successful CBD stone clearance was achieved in 70 patients (87.5%; 95% CI: 78.5%-93.3%) in Group A and 67 patients (95.7%; 95% CI: 88.1%-98.9%) in Group B (p = 0.098). Mean total operative time was significantly shorter in Group B (69.8 ± 22.1 minutes) compared with Group A (83.3 ± 13.5 minutes; p < 0.001). The mean LC duration was also shorter in Group B (38.4 ± 13.2 vs. 41.2 ± 8.98 minutes; p = 0.046), while ERCP duration did not differ significantly (37.4 ± 11.4 vs. 43.3 ± 11.8 minutes; p = 0.122). Median hospital stay and estimated cost were also lower in Group B (1 vs. 3 days and $1,100 vs. $1,300; p < 0.001 and p = 0.04, respectively). Conversion to open surgery occurred in seven patients (8.8%; 95% CI: 3.6%-17.2%) in Group A and two patients (2.9%; 95% CI: 0.3%-9.9%) in Group B (p = 0.17). Technical difficulty due to bowel distension was observed only in Group A (four patients; 5.0%; 95% CI: 1.4%-12.3%; p = 0.12). Postoperative pancreatitis occurred in four patients (5.0%; 95% CI: 1.4%-12.3%) in Group A and two patients (2.9%; 95% CI: 0.3%-9.9%) in Group B (p = 0.68). Conclusions Both sequencing strategies were safe and effective when performed by an experienced, surgeon-led team. The LC-first approach was associated with shorter operative time, specifically due to a shorter LC duration, reduced hospital stay, and lower cost, while maintaining comparable stone clearance rates. These findings suggest that, in settings with coordinated surgical-endoscopic expertise, the LC-first approach may be preferable. Prospective randomized studies are needed to confirm these findings and evaluate patient-reported outcomes.
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.