Meta-analysis of the efficacy of a single-stage laparoscopic management versus two-stage endoscopic management of symptomatic gallstones with common bile duct stones
Background The optimal treatment of gallstones with associated common bile duct stones in the laparoscopic era is controversial. Various reviews and decision based algorithms have been published, but the superior treatment modality is unclear. Therefore, a meta-analysis was conducted to compare the two most commonly used treatment strategies. Methods A systematic review was conducted to compare single stage laparoscopic cholecystectomy with common bile duct exploration versus a combined endoscopic and laparoscopic treatment. Eligible studies were identified using a search of Medline, Embase, Cochrane and Science Citation Index Expanded databases. Appropriately selected articles were independently reviewed and data was extracted and cross referenced. A meta-analysis was conducted of the pooled trial data to determine difference in outcomes. Results A total of seven randomized trials were identified with 746 patients with 366 in the laparoscopic only treatment group and 380 in the combined endoscopic and laparoscopic treatment arms. There was no significant difference in successful bile duct clearance between the two groups (OR 1.23; 95% CI 0.55 to 2.75, P = 0.61). There was no statistical difference in morbidity (RR 1.23; 95% CI 0.92 to 1.66; P = 0.17), mortality (RD -0.00; 95% CI -0.02 to 0.01, P = 0.59) or length of hospital stay (MD -0.31; 95% CI -1.68 to 1.06, P = 0.66). However, there was a statistically significant difference in the duration of procedure in favour of the single stage laparoscopic treatment (MD -6.83; 95% CI -9.59 to -4.07, P < 0.00001). Conclusion Both the laparoscopic alone or the combined endoscopic and laparoscopic treatment approaches show comparative efficacy in management of symptomatic gallstones with associated choledocholithiasis.
Gurusamy K, Sahay SJ, Burroughs AK, Davidson BR. Systematic review and meta-analysis of intraoperative versus preoperative endoscopic sphincterotomy in patients with gallbladder and suspected common bile duct stones. Br J Surg 2011;98(7): 908–16.
Ko CW, Lee SP. Epidemiology and natural history of common bile duct stones and prediction of disease. Gastrointest Endosc 2002;56(6): 165–9.
Petelin JB. Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration. Surg Endosc 2003;17(11): 1705–15.
Topal B, Van de Moortel M, Fieuws S, et al. The value of magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography in predicting common bile duct stones in patients with gallstone disease. Br J Surg 2003; 90(1):42–7.
Coulton JB, Colleen C, Curran MS. Quality indicators, including complications, of ERCP in a community setting: A prospective study. Gastrointest Endosc 2009;70(3): 457–67.
Marple JT, Ikenberry SO, Anderson MA et al. and ASGE standards of Practice Committee. The role of endoscopy in management of choledocholithiasis. Gastrointest Endosc 2011; 74(4): 731–44.
Petelin JB. Surgical management of common bile duct stones. Gastrointest Endosc Cli N Am 2002; 56(6):183–9.
Kim K, Kim W, Lee H, Sung C. Predictions of common bile duct stones: its validation in laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Hepatogastroenterology 1997;44(18): 1574–9.
Hallal A, Amortequi J, Jeroukhimov I, et al. Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography accurate detects common bile duct stones in resolving gallstones pancreatitis. J Am Coll Surg 2005;200(6): 869–75.
Romagnuolo J, Bardou M, Rahme E, et al. Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography a meta-analysis of test performance in suspected biliary disease. Ann Intern Med 2003;139(7): 547–57.
Verna D, Kapadia A, Eisen M, Adler GD. "EUS vs MRCP for detection of choledocholithiasis,". Gastrointest Endosc 2006;64(2): 248–54.
Club TSS. A prospective analysis of 1518 laparoscopic cholecystectomies. N Engl J Med 1991;324(16): 1073–8.
Conference NC. Gall stones and laparoscopic cholecystectomy. JAMA 1993;269(8): 1018–24.
Tinoco R, Tinoco A, El-Kadre L, Peres L, Sueth D. Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration. Ann Surg 2008;247(4): 674–9.
Tai CK, Tang CN, Ha JP, et al. Laparoscopic exploration of common bile duct in difficult choledocholithiasis. Surg Endosc 2004;18(6):910–4.
Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altmann DG, The PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta–analyses. Intl J Surg 2010;151(4).
Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Sterne JAC. Assessing risk of bias in included studies. Cochrane Statistical Methods Group and Cochrane Bias Methods Group Chapter 8, 2011.
Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Sterne JAC. Cochrane Handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.1.0, 2011.
Higgins JPT, Green S. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Versions 5.1.0. The Cochrane Collaborations, 2011.
Hozo SP, Djulbegovic B, Hozo I. Estimating the mean and variance from the median, range and the size of a sample BMC Med Res Methodol 2005;5(13).
Rhodes M, Sussman L, Cohen L, Lewis MP. Randomised trial of laparoscopic exploration of common bile duct versus postoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiography for common bile duct stones. Lancet 1998;351(9097): 159–61.
Sgourakis G, Karaliotas K. Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration and cholecystectomy versus endoscopic stone extraction and laparoscopic cholecystectomy for choledocholithiasis. A prospective randomized study. Minerva Chir 2002;57(4): 467–74.
Noble H, Tranter S, Chesworth T, Norton S, Thompson M. A randomized, clinical trial to compare endoscopic sphincterotomy and subsequent laparoscopic cholecystectomy with primary laparoscopic bile duct exploration during cholecystectomy in higher risk patients with choledocholithiasis. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech 2009;19(6): 713–20.
Rogers SJ, Cello JP, Horn JK, et al. Prospective randomized trial of LC+LCBDE vs ERCP/S+LC for common bile duct stone disease. Arch Surg (Chicago, Ill : 1960) 2010;145(1): 28–33.
Cuschieri A, Lezoche E, Morino M, et al. E.A.E.S. multicenter prospective randomized trial comparing two-stage vs single-stage management of patients with gallstone disease and ductal calculi. Surg Endosc 1999;13: 952–7.
Nathanson LK, O'Rourke NA, Martin IJ, et al. Postoperative ERCP versus laparoscopic choledochotomy for clearance of selected bile duct calculi. Ann Surg 2005;242(2): 188–92.
Bansal VK, Misra MC, Garg P, Prabhu M. A prospective randomized trial comparing two-stage versus single-stage management of patients with gallstone disease and common bile duct stones. Surg Endosc 2010; 24:1986–9.
Tranter SE, Thompson MH. Comparison of endoscopic sphincterotomy and laparoscopic exploration of the common bile duct. Br J Surg 2002;89(12): 1495–504.
Martin DJ, Vernon DR, Toouli J. Surgical versus endoscopic treatment of bile duct stones. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (Online) (2):CD003327. Epub 2006/04/21.
Clayton ESJ CS, Alexakis N, Leandros E. Meta-analysis of endoscopy and surgery versus surgery alone for common bile duct stones with the gallbladder in situ. Br J Surg 2006;93: 1185–91.
Alexakis N, Connor S. Meta-analysis of one- vs two-stage laparoscopic/endoscopic management of common bile duct stones HPB (Oxford) 2012;14(4):2 54–9.
Parra-Membrives P, Diaz-Gomez D, Vilegas-Portero R, et al. Appropriate management of common bile duct stones: a RAND Corporation/UCLA Appropriateness Method statistical analysis. Surg Endosc 2010;24(5): 1187–94.
Chang L, Lo S, Stabile BE, et al. Preoperative vs postoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in mild to moderate gallstone pancreatitis: a prospective randomized trial. Ann Surg 2000;231: 82–7.
Waage A, Stromberg C, Leijonmarck CE, Arvidsson D. Long-term results from laparoscopic common bile duct exploration. Surg Endosc 2003;17(8): 1181–5.
Campbell-LLoyd AJM, Martin DJ, Martin IJ. Long-term outcome after laparoscopic bile duct exploration: A 5 years follow-up of 150 consecutive patients. ANZ J Surg 2008;78: 492–4.
Topal B, Vromman K, Aerts R, et al. Hospital cost categories of onestage versus two-stage management of common bile duct stones. Surg Endosc 2010;24(2): 413–6.
Brown LM, Rogers SJ, Cello JP, Brasel KJ, Inadomi JM. Cost-effective treatment of patients with symptomatic cholelithiasis and possible common bile duct stones. J Am Coll Surg 2011;212(6): 1049–60.
Poulose BK, Speroff T, Holzman MD. Optimizing choledocholithiasis management – A cost-effective analysis. Arch Surg 2007;142(1): 43–8.
Liberman MA, Phillips EH, Carroll BJ, et al. Cost-effective management of choledocholithiasis: Laparoscopic transcystic duct exploration or endoscopic sphincterotomy. J Am Coll Surg 1996;182(6): 488–94.
Copyright (c) 2015 Acta Chirurgica Croatica
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
The authors hereby authorize the Acta Chirurgica Croatica (ACC) to publish their work.
The authors are aware that although ACC is Open Access journal, the copyright of all material published is vested in ACC. Open access articles are freely available to read, download, and share from the time of publication under the terms of the Creative Commons License Attribution ‐ NonCommerical No Derivative (CC BY‐NC‐ND) license. This license does not permit reuse for any commercial purposes nor does it cover the reuse or modification of individual elements of the work (such as figures, tables, etc.) in the creation of derivative works without specific permission of ACC and appropriate acknowledgment of its source. The authors permit ACC to allow third parties to copy any part of the work without asking for permission, provided that the reference to the source is given and that this is not done for commercial purposes. Except for copyright, other proprietary rights related to the work (e.g., patent or other rights to any process or procedure) shall be retained by the author. To reproduce any text, figures, tables, or illustrations from this work in future works of their own, the author must obtain written permission from ACC.
Each of the author(s) hereby also grants permission to ACC to use such author’s name and likeness in connection with any past, present or future promotional activity by ACC, including, but not limited to, promotions for upcoming issues or publications, circulation solicitations, advertising or other publications in connection with ACC. Also, each of the author(s) hereby grants permission to ACC to use the manuscript in editorial research related to the improvement of editorial conduct, decision making, and issues related to peer review.
Each of the author(s) hereby releases and shall indemnify and hold harmless ACC and its successors, assigns, licensees, officers, directors, employees, and their respective heirs and representatives from and against any and all liabilities, losses, damages and expenses arising out of any claims of any kind that may be asserted against any of them based in whole or in part on any breach of the author(s)’ representations or warranties herein or in the work or anything contained in the work, including but not limited to any claims for copyright infringement or violation of any rights of privacy or publicity.