ArticleBMC gastroenterology2026
Single-stage versus two-stage ERCP and laparoscopic cholecystectomy for gallbladder stones with choledocholithiasis: a retrospective cohort study with long-term prognostic comparative analysis.
Article in BMC gastroenterology, 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
introductionThe optimal treatment strategy for gallbladder stones with concurrent choledocholithiasis remains controversial. This study aims to compare the long-term prognosis of single-stage versus two-stage approaches combining endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). METHODOLOGY: A retrospective cohort study was conducted from January 2020 to December 2022, including 120 patients with gallbladder stones and choledocholithiasis. Patients were divided into two groups: single-stage group (n = 57) underwent the single-stage procedure (simultaneous ERCP and LC), whereas two-stage group (n = 63) received the two-stage approach (ERCP followed by LC after 2-8 weeks). Perioperative parameters, early complications, stone recurrence, cholangitis recurrence, and quality of life were assessed using Gastrointestinal Quality of Life Index (GIQLI). Survival analysis was performed using Kaplan-Meier curves and log-rank tests.
resultsSingle-stage group demonstrated shorter total operative time (156.2 ± 28.5 vs. 189.7 ± 32.2 min, P < 0.001), reduced hospital stay (3.0 vs. 5.0 d, P < 0.001), and lower total medical costs (32,457 ± 4,235 vs. 38,789 ± 5,568 CNY, P < 0.001) compared to two-stage group. Both groups achieved comparable high success rates (96.5% vs. 96.8%) with similar blood loss and early complication rates (14.0% vs. 19.1%, P > 0.05). No mortality occurred in either group. During follow-up of 36 months, stone recurrence (12.3% vs. 14.3%) and cholangitis recurrence rates (8.8% vs. 11.1%) were similar between groups, with no significant differences in recurrence-free survival curves (P > 0.05). Quality of life assessment showed superior early recovery in single-stage group at one month postoperatively (GIQLI score: 85.1 ± 15.2 vs. 78.3 ± 9.8, P < 0.05), but both groups achieved equivalent long-term quality of life outcomes at 36 months follow-up (116.7 ± 12.5 vs. 115.2 ± 11.8, P > 0.05).
conclusionBoth single-stage and two-stage approaches provide safe and effective treatment for gallbladder stones with choledocholithiasis. The single-stage strategy offers advantages in operative efficiency, hospital stay, cost-effectiveness, and early quality of life recovery, while maintaining comparable long-term recurrence rates and safety profiles.
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.