Meta-analysis of one- vs. two-stage laparoscopic/endoscopic management of common bile duct stones

Authors


  • Part of the present study was presented at the 19th International Congress of the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery, Torino, Italy, 15 to 18 June 2011.

Nicholas Alexakis, University Department of Surgery, Hippocratio Hospital, V. Sofias 114, Athens 11527, Greece. Tel: +30 210 777 2331. Fax: +30 210 770 7574. E-mail: nalexakis@yahoo.co.uk, nalexak@med.uoa.gr

Abstract

Background:  The present study is a meta-analysis of English articles comparing one-stage [laparoscopic common bile duct exploration or intra-operative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP)] vs. two-stage (laparoscopic cholecystectomy preceded or followed by ERCP) management of common bile duct stones.

Methods:  MEDLINE/PubMed and Science Citation Index databases (1990–2011) were searched for randomized, controlled trials that met the inclusion criteria for data extraction. Outcomes were calculated as odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using RevMan 5.1.

Results:  Nine trials with 933 patients were studied. No significant differences was observed between the two groups with regard to bile duct clearance (OR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.65–1.21), mortality (OR, 1.2; 95% CI, 0.32–4.52), total morbidity (OR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.53–1.06), major morbidity (OR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.60–1.52) and the need for additional procedures (OR, 1.58; 95% CI, 0.76–3.30).

Conclusions:  Outcomes after one-stage laparoscopic/endoscopic management of bile duct stones are no different to the outcomes after two-stage management.

Ancillary