SynthesisSurgical endoscopy2026
Early versus delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) for choledocholithiasis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.
Synthesis in Surgical endoscopy, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionLaparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is the definitive treatment for choledocholithiasis after successful stone clearance via endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). However, the optimal timing of surgery remains debated. This systematic review and meta-analysis compared early laparoscopic cholecystectomy (ELC ≤ 72 h) with delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy (DLC > 72 h) after ERCP.
methodsA systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane Central was conducted from inception to September 1, 2025. Only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing ELC with DLC after successful ERCP for choledocholithiasis were included. The primary outcomes were conversion to open surgery and operative time. Secondary outcomes included postoperative hospital stay, recurrent biliary events, intraoperative and postoperative complications, bile leak, and common bile duct (CBD) injury. Risk of bias was assessed using RoB 2.0, and the certainty of evidence was assessed using the GRADE tool.
resultsEight RCTs involving 576 patients (288 ELC, 288 DLC) were included. Moderate certainty evidence suggests that ELC probably reduces conversion to open surgery (RR 0.35; 95% CI: 0.17-0.68) and recurrent biliary events (RR 0.09; 95% CI: 0.03-0.28), and may reduce operative time (MD -17.63 min; 95% CI: -25.04 to -10.22), postoperative complications (RR 0.46; 95% CI: 0.26-0.82), and hospital stay (MD -0.52 days; 95% CI: -1.02 to -0.02). The evidence for rare complications such as CBD injury and bile leak remains very uncertain. Sensitivity analysis excluding trials with shorter ERCP-to-DLC intervals demonstrated consistent findings.
conclusionsModerate certainty evidence suggests that early laparoscopic cholecystectomy probably improves surgical and clinical outcomes following ERCP for choledocholithiasis. However, the evidence for rare complications remains very uncertain, and these findings should be interpreted in appropriately selected patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42414771What 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.