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

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.