Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2013 Dec 12;2013(12):CD003327.
doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003327.pub4.

Surgical versus endoscopic treatment of bile duct stones

Bobby V M Dasari  1 , Chuan Jin Tan, Kurinchi Selvan Gurusamy, David J Martin, Gareth Kirk, Lloyd McKie, Tom Diamond, Mark A Taylor
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Surgical versus endoscopic treatment of bile duct stones

Bobby V M Dasari et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. .

Abstract

Background: Between 10% to 18% of people undergoing cholecystectomy for gallstones have common bile duct stones. Treatment of the bile duct stones can be conducted as open cholecystectomy plus open common bile duct exploration or laparoscopic cholecystectomy plus laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LC + LCBDE) versus pre- or post-cholecystectomy endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in two stages, usually combined with either sphincterotomy (commonest) or sphincteroplasty (papillary dilatation) for common bile duct clearance. The benefits and harms of the different approaches are not known.

Objectives: We aimed to systematically review the benefits and harms of different approaches to the management of common bile duct stones.

Search methods: We searched the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, Issue 7 of 12, 2013) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (1946 to August 2013), EMBASE (1974 to August 2013), and Science Citation Index Expanded (1900 to August 2013).

Selection criteria: We included all randomised clinical trials which compared the results from open surgery versus endoscopic clearance and laparoscopic surgery versus endoscopic clearance for common bile duct stones.

Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently identified the trials for inclusion and independently extracted data. We calculated the odds ratio (OR) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) using both fixed-effect and random-effects models meta-analyses, performed with Review Manager 5.

Main results: Sixteen randomised clinical trials with a total of 1758 randomised participants fulfilled the inclusion criteria of this review. Eight trials with 737 participants compared open surgical clearance with ERCP; five trials with 621 participants compared laparoscopic clearance with pre-operative ERCP; and two trials with 166 participants compared laparoscopic clearance with postoperative ERCP. One trial with 234 participants compared LCBDE with intra-operative ERCP. There were no trials of open or LCBDE versus ERCP in people without an intact gallbladder. All trials had a high risk of bias.There was no significant difference in the mortality between open surgery versus ERCP clearance (eight trials; 733 participants; 5/371 (1%) versus 10/358 (3%) OR 0.51;95% CI 0.18 to 1.44). Neither was there a significant difference in the morbidity between open surgery versus ERCP clearance (eight trials; 733 participants; 76/371 (20%) versus 67/358 (19%) OR 1.12; 95% CI 0.77 to 1.62). Participants in the open surgery group had significantly fewer retained stones compared with the ERCP group (seven trials; 609 participants; 20/313 (6%) versus 47/296 (16%) OR 0.36; 95% CI 0.21 to 0.62), P = 0.0002.There was no significant difference in the mortality between LC + LCBDE versus pre-operative ERCP +LC (five trials; 580 participants; 2/285 (0.7%) versus 3/295 (1%) OR 0.72; 95% CI 0.12 to 4.33). Neither was there was a significant difference in the morbidity between the two groups (five trials; 580 participants; 44/285 (15%) versus 37/295 (13%) OR 1.28; 95% CI 0.80 to 2.05). There was no significant difference between the two groups in the number of participants with retained stones (five trials; 580 participants; 24/285 (8%) versus 31/295 (11%) OR 0.79; 95% CI 0.45 to 1.39).There was only one trial assessing LC + LCBDE versus LC+intra-operative ERCP including 234 participants. There was no reported mortality in either of the groups. There was no significant difference in the morbidity, retained stones, procedure failure rates between the two intervention groups.Two trials assessed LC + LCBDE versus LC+post-operative ERCP. There was no reported mortality in either of the groups. There was no significant difference in the morbidity between laparoscopic surgery and postoperative ERCP groups (two trials; 166 participants; 13/81 (16%) versus 12/85 (14%) OR 1.16; 95% CI 0.50 to 2.72). There was a significant difference in the retained stones between laparoscopic surgery and postoperative ERCP groups (two trials; 166 participants; 7/81 (9%) versus 21/85 (25%) OR 0.28; 95% CI 0.11 to 0.72; P = 0.008.In total, seven trials including 746 participants compared single staged LC + LCBDE versus two-staged pre-operative ERCP + LC or LC + post-operative ERCP. There was no significant difference in the mortality between single and two-stage management (seven trials; 746 participants; 2/366 versus 3/380 OR 0.72; 95% CI 0.12 to 4.33). There was no a significant difference in the morbidity (seven trials; 746 participants; 57/366 (16%) versus 49/380 (13%) OR 1.25; 95% CI 0.83 to 1.89). There were significantly fewer retained stones in the single-stage group (31/366 participants; 8%) compared with the two-stage group (52/380 participants; 14%), but the difference was not statistically significantOR 0.59; 95% CI 0.37 to 0.94).There was no significant difference in the conversion rates of LCBDE to open surgery when compared with pre-operative, intra-operative, and postoperative ERCP groups. Meta-analysis of the outcomes duration of hospital stay, quality of life, and cost of the procedures could not be performed due to lack of data.

Authors' conclusions: Open bile duct surgery seems superior to ERCP in achieving common bile duct stone clearance based on the evidence available from the early endoscopy era. There is no significant difference in the mortality and morbidity between laparoscopic bile duct clearance and the endoscopic options. There is no significant reduction in the number of retained stones and failure rates in the laparoscopy groups compared with the pre-operative and intra-operative ERCP groups. There is no significant difference in the mortality, morbidity, retained stones, and failure rates between the single-stage laparoscopic bile duct clearance and two-stage endoscopic management. More randomised clinical trials without risks of systematic and random errors are necessary to confirm these findings.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

None known.

Figures

1
1
Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.
2
2
Risk of bias graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.
3
3
Study flow diagram.
4
4
Trial sequential analysis of mortality (open surgery versus endoscopic retrograde cholangio pancreatography) 
 The diversity‐adjusted required information size (DARIS) was calculated to 24,498 patients, based on the proportion of patients in the control group with the outcome of 2.79%, a relative risk reduction of 20%, an alpha of 5%, a beta of 20%, and a diversity of 0%. To account for zero event groups, a continuity correction of 0.01 was used in the calculation of the cumulative Z‐curve (blue line). After accruing a total of 729 participants in eight trials, only 2.98% of the DARIS has been reached. Accordingly, the trial sequential analysis does not show the required information size and the trial sequential monitoring boundaries. As shown, the conventional statistical boundaries (dotted red line) have also not been crossed by the cumulative Z‐curve.
5
5
Trial sequential analysis of morbidity (open surgery versus endoscopic retrograde cholangio pancreatography (ERCP)) 
 The diversity‐adjusted required information size (DARIS) was calculated to 3,145 patients, based on the proportion of patients in the control group with the outcome of 18.72%, a relative risk reduction of 20%, an alpha of 5%, a beta of 20%, and a diversity of 0%. After accruing a total of 729 participants in eight trials, only 23.18% of the DARIS has been reached. So, the futility area was not drawn. The cumulative Z‐curve (blue line) does not cross the trial sequential monitoring boundaries (red line) or the conventional boundaries (etched red line). This is consistent with absence of current evidence of any significant difference between open surgery and ERCP but significantly increased or decreased morbidity of open surgery compared to ERCP cannot be ruled out.
6
6
Trial sequential analysis of retained stones (open surgery versus endoscopic retrograde cholangio pancreatography (ERCP)) 
 The diversity‐adjusted required information size (DARIS) was calculated to 3,803 patients, based on the proportion of patients in the control group with the outcome of 15.88%, a relative risk reduction of 20%, an alpha of 5%, a beta of 20%, and a diversity of 0%. After accruing a total of 609 participants in seven trials, only 16.01% of the DARIS has been reached. So, the futility area was not drawn. The cumulative Z‐curve (blue line) does not cross the trial sequential monitoring boundaries (red line) but crosses the conventional boundaries (etched red line). This suggests that although there is a statistically significant reduction in the proportion of people with retained stones in the open surgery group compared to the ERCP group, there is a high risk of random error and one cannot firmly conclude that open surgery has significantly lower retained stones proportion compared to the ERCP group.
7
7
Trial sequential analysis of mortality (laparoscopic common bile duct exploration versus pre‐operative endoscopic retrograde cholangio pancreatography after laparoscopic cholecystectomy) 
 The diversity‐adjusted required information size (DARIS) was calculated to 71,546 patients, based on the proportion of patients in the control group with the outcome of 1.02%, a relative risk reduction of 20%, an alpha of 5%, a beta of 20%, and a diversity of 0%. To account for zero event groups, a continuity correction of 0.01 was used in the calculation of the cumulative Z‐curve (blue line). After accruing a total of 580 participants in five trials, only 0.81% of the DARIS has been reached. Accordingly, the trial sequential analysis does not show the required information size and the trial sequential monitoring boundaries. As shown, the conventional statistical boundaries (etched red line) have also not been crossed by the cumulative Z‐curve.
8
8
Trial sequential analysis of morbidity (laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) versus pre‐operative endoscopic retrograde cholangio pancreatography (ERCP) after laparoscopic cholecystectomy) 
 The diversity‐adjusted required information size (DARIS) was calculated to 4,990 patients, based on the proportion of patients in the control group with the outcome of 12.54%, a relative risk reduction of 20%, an alpha of 5%, a beta of 20%, and a diversity of 0%. After accruing a total of 580 participants in five trials, only 11.62% of the DARIS has been reached. So, the futility area was not drawn. The cumulative Z‐curve (blue line) does not cross the trial sequential monitoring boundaries (red line) or the conventional boundaries (etched red line). This is consistent with absence of current evidence of any significant difference between LCBDE and ERCP but significantly increased or decreased morbidity of LCBDE compared to ERCP cannot be ruled out.
9
9
Trial sequential analysis of retained stones (laparoscopic common bile duct exploration versus pre‐operative endoscopic retrograde cholangio pancreatography after laparoscopic cholecystectomy) 
 The diversity‐adjusted required information size (DARIS) was calculated to 6,098 patients, based on the proportion of patients in the control group with the outcome of 10.51%, a relative risk reduction of 20%, an alpha of 5%, a beta of 20%, and a diversity of 0%. To account for zero event groups, a continuity correction of 0.01 was used in the calculation of the cumulative Z‐curve (blue line). After accruing a total of 580 participants in five trials, only 9.51% of the DARIS has been reached. So, the futility area was not drawn. The cumulative Z‐curve does not cross the trial sequential monitoring boundaries (red line) or the conventional boundaries (etched red line). This is consistent with absence of current evidence of any significant difference between LCBDE and ERCP but significantly increased or decreased proportion of people with retained stones of LCBDE compared to ERCP cannot be ruled out.
10
10
Trial sequential analysis of mortality (laparoscopic common bile duct exploration versus post‐operative endoscopic retrograde cholangio pancreatography after laparoscopic cholecystectomy) 
 The diversity‐adjusted required information size (DARIS) was calculated to 71,546 patients, based on the proportion of patients in the control group with the outcome of 1.02%, a relative risk reduction of 20%, an alpha of 5%, a beta of 20%, and a diversity of 0%. To account for zero event groups, a continuity correction of 0.01 was used in the calculation of the cumulative Z‐curve (blue line). After accruing a total of 166 participants in two trials, only 0.24% of the DARIS has been reached. Accordingly, the trial sequential analysis does not show the required information size and the trial sequential monitoring boundaries. As shown, the conventional statistical boundaries (etched red line) have also not been crossed by the cumulative Z‐curve.
11
11
Trial sequential analysis of morbidity (laparoscopic common bile duct exploration versus post‐operative endoscopic retrograde cholangio pancreatography after laparoscopic cholecystectomy) 
 The diversity‐adjusted required information size (DARIS) was calculated to 4,381 patients, based on the proportion of patients in the control group with the outcome of 14.12%, a relative risk reduction of 20%, an alpha of 5%, a beta of 20%, and a diversity of 0%. After accruing a total of 166 participants in two trials, only 3.79% of the DARIS has been reached. Accordingly, the trial sequential analysis does not show the required information size and the trial sequential monitoring boundaries. As shown, the conventional statistical boundaries (etched red line) have also not been crossed by the cumulative Z‐curve (blue line).
12
12
Trial sequential analysis of retained stones (laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) versus post‐operative endoscopic retrograde cholangio pancreatography (ERCP) after laparoscopic cholecystectomy) 
 The diversity‐adjusted required information size (DARIS) was calculated to 7,661 patients, based on the proportion of patients in the control group with the outcome of 24.71%, a relative risk reduction of 20%, an alpha of 5%, a beta of 20%, and a diversity of 0%. After accruing a total of 166 participants in two trials, only 2.17% of the DARIS has been reached. Accordingly, the trial sequential analysis does not show the required information size and the trial sequential monitoring boundaries. The cumulative Z‐curve (blue line) crosses the conventional boundaries (etched red line). This suggests that although there is statistically significant reduction in the proportion of people with retained stones in the LCBDE group compared to the post‐operative ERCP group, there is a high risk of random error and one cannot firmly conclude that LCBDE has significantly lower retained stones proportion compared to the post‐operative ERCP group. The random‐effects model also did not reveal significant difference between the groups.
13
13
Trial sequential analysis of mortality (single‐stage versus two‐stage procedures) 
 The diversity‐adjusted required information size (DARIS) was calculated to 86,456 patients, based on the proportion of patients in the control group with the outcome of 0.79%, a relative risk reduction of 20%, an alpha of 5%, a beta of 20%, and a diversity of 0%. To account for zero event groups, a continuity correction of 0.01 was used in the calculation of the cumulative Z‐curve (blue line). After accruing a total of 746 participants in seven trials, only 0.86% of the DARIS has been reached. Accordingly, the trial sequential analysis does not show the required information size and the trial sequential monitoring boundaries. As shown, the conventional boundaries have also not been crossed by the cumulative Z‐curve.
14
14
Trial sequential analysis of morbidity (single‐stage versus two‐stage procedures) 
 The diversity‐adjusted required information size (DARIS) was calculated to 4,837 patients, based on the proportion of patients in the control group with the outcome of 12.89%, a relative risk reduction of 20%, an alpha of 5%, a beta of 20%, and a diversity of 0%. After accruing a total of 746 participants in seven trials, only 15.42% of the DARIS has been reached. So, the futility area was not drawn. The cumulative Z‐curve (blue line) does not cross the trial sequential monitoring boundaries (red line) or the conventional boundaries (etched red line). This is consistent with absence of current evidence of any significant difference between single‐stage and two‐stage procedures but significantly increased or decreased morbidity of single‐stage compared to two‐stage procedures cannot be ruled out.
15
15
Trial sequential analysis of retained stones (single‐stage versus two‐stage procedures) 
 The diversity‐adjusted required information size (DARIS) was calculated to 9,003 patients, based on the proportion of patients in the control group with the outcome of 13.68%, a relative risk reduction of 20%, an alpha of 5%, a beta of 20%, and a diversity of 49.85%. To account for zero event groups, a continuity correction of 0.01 was used in the calculation of the cumulative Z‐curve (blue line). After accruing a total of 746 participants in seven trials, only 8.29% of the DARIS has been reached. So, the futility area was not drawn. The cumulative Z‐curve does not cross the trial sequential monitoring boundaries (red line) but crosses the conventional boundaries (etched red line). This suggests that although there is statistically significant reduction in the proportion of people with retained stones in the single‐stage group compared to the two‐stage group, there is a high risk of random error and one cannot firmly conclude that single‐stage group has significantly lower retained stones proportion compared to the two‐stage group.
1.1
1.1. Analysis
Comparison 1 Open surgery versus ERCP, Outcome 1 Mortality.
1.2
1.2. Analysis
Comparison 1 Open surgery versus ERCP, Outcome 2 Mortality (Sensitivity analysis).
1.3
1.3. Analysis
Comparison 1 Open surgery versus ERCP, Outcome 3 Total morbidity.
1.4
1.4. Analysis
Comparison 1 Open surgery versus ERCP, Outcome 4 Morbidity (Sensitivity analysis).
1.5
1.5. Analysis
Comparison 1 Open surgery versus ERCP, Outcome 5 Retained stones.
1.6
1.6. Analysis
Comparison 1 Open surgery versus ERCP, Outcome 6 Retained stones (Sensitivity analysis).
1.7
1.7. Analysis
Comparison 1 Open surgery versus ERCP, Outcome 7 Failure of procedure.
1.9
1.9. Analysis
Comparison 1 Open surgery versus ERCP, Outcome 9 Cost.
2.1
2.1. Analysis
Comparison 2 LC + LCBDE versus pre‐operative ERCP + LC, Outcome 1 Mortality.
2.2
2.2. Analysis
Comparison 2 LC + LCBDE versus pre‐operative ERCP + LC, Outcome 2 Mortality (Sensitivity analysis).
2.3
2.3. Analysis
Comparison 2 LC + LCBDE versus pre‐operative ERCP + LC, Outcome 3 Total morbidity.
2.4
2.4. Analysis
Comparison 2 LC + LCBDE versus pre‐operative ERCP + LC, Outcome 4 Morbidity (Sensitivity analysis).
2.5
2.5. Analysis
Comparison 2 LC + LCBDE versus pre‐operative ERCP + LC, Outcome 5 Retained stones.
2.6
2.6. Analysis
Comparison 2 LC + LCBDE versus pre‐operative ERCP + LC, Outcome 6 Retained stones (Sensitivity analysis).
2.7
2.7. Analysis
Comparison 2 LC + LCBDE versus pre‐operative ERCP + LC, Outcome 7 Failure of procedure.
2.8
2.8. Analysis
Comparison 2 LC + LCBDE versus pre‐operative ERCP + LC, Outcome 8 Conversion to open surgery.
3.1
3.1. Analysis
Comparison 3 LC + LCBDE versus LC + intra‐operative ERCP, Outcome 1 Morbidity.
3.2
3.2. Analysis
Comparison 3 LC + LCBDE versus LC + intra‐operative ERCP, Outcome 2 Retained stones.
3.3
3.3. Analysis
Comparison 3 LC + LCBDE versus LC + intra‐operative ERCP, Outcome 3 Failure of procedure.
3.4
3.4. Analysis
Comparison 3 LC + LCBDE versus LC + intra‐operative ERCP, Outcome 4 Conversion to open surgery.
3.5
3.5. Analysis
Comparison 3 LC + LCBDE versus LC + intra‐operative ERCP, Outcome 5 Duration of procedure.
4.1
4.1. Analysis
Comparison 4 LC + LCBDE versus LC + postoperative ERCP, Outcome 1 Total morbidity.
4.2
4.2. Analysis
Comparison 4 LC + LCBDE versus LC + postoperative ERCP, Outcome 2 Retained stones after primary intervention.
4.3
4.3. Analysis
Comparison 4 LC + LCBDE versus LC + postoperative ERCP, Outcome 3 Failure of procedure.
4.4
4.4. Analysis
Comparison 4 LC + LCBDE versus LC + postoperative ERCP, Outcome 4 Conversion to open surgery.
5.1
5.1. Analysis
Comparison 5 Single‐stage versus two‐stage management, Outcome 1 Mortality.
5.2
5.2. Analysis
Comparison 5 Single‐stage versus two‐stage management, Outcome 2 Mortality (Sensitivity analysis).
5.3
5.3. Analysis
Comparison 5 Single‐stage versus two‐stage management, Outcome 3 Morbidity.
5.4
5.4. Analysis
Comparison 5 Single‐stage versus two‐stage management, Outcome 4 Morbidity (Sensitivity analysis).
5.5
5.5. Analysis
Comparison 5 Single‐stage versus two‐stage management, Outcome 5 Retained stones.
5.6
5.6. Analysis
Comparison 5 Single‐stage versus two‐stage management, Outcome 6 Retained stones (Sensitivity analysis).
5.7
5.7. Analysis
Comparison 5 Single‐stage versus two‐stage management, Outcome 7 Failure to complete the procedure.
5.8
5.8. Analysis
Comparison 5 Single‐stage versus two‐stage management, Outcome 8 Conversion to open surgery.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Update of

References

References to studies included in this review

Bansal 2010 {published data only}
    1. 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. Surgical Endoscopy 2010;24:1986‐9. - PubMed
Bornman 1992 {unpublished data only}
    1. Bornman PC, Funnell IC, Wyk MEC, Krige JEJ, Graham S. Does ERCP before planned cholecystectomy benefit patients with suspected bile duct stones? A randomised trial [abstract]. South African Medical Journal 1991;81:41.
Cuschieri 1999 {published data only}
    1. Cuschieri A, Lezoche E, Mornino M, Croce E, Lacy A, Tooulo J, 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. Surgical Endoscopy 1999;13(10):952‐7. - PubMed
Hammarstrom 1995 {published data only}
    1. Hammarstrom LE, Holmin T, Stridbeck H, Ihse I. Long‐term follow‐up of a prospective randomized study of endoscopic versus surgical treatment of bile duct calculi in patients with gallbladder in situ. British Journal of Surgery 1995;82(11):1516‐21. - PubMed
Hong 2006 {published data only}
    1. Hong DF, Xin Y, Chen DW. Comparision of laparoscopic cholecystectomy combined with intraoperative endoscopic sphincterotomy and laparoscopic exploration of the common bile duct for cholecystocholedocholithiasis. Surgical Endoscopy 2006;20:424‐7. - PubMed
    1. Xin Y, Hong D, Cai X, Mou Y, Li L, Wang G, et al. Comparision of laparoscopic cholecystectomy combined with intraoperative endoscopic sphincterotomy and combined with laparoscopic common bile duct exploration in treatment of cholithiasis and calculus of common bile duct [Chinese]. National Medical Journal of China 2007;87(38):2703‐5. - PubMed
Kapoor 1996 {published data only}
    1. Kapoor R, Kaushik SP, Saraswat VA, Choudhuri G, Sikora SS, Saxena R, et al. Prospective randomized trial comparing endoscopic sphincterotomy followed by surgery with surgery alone in good risk patients with choledocholithiasis. HPB Surgery 1996;9(3):145‐8. - PMC - PubMed
Nathanson 2005 {published data only}
    1. Nathanson LK, O'Rourke NA, Martin IJ, Fielding GA, Cowen AE, Roberts RK, et al. Postoperative ERCP versus laparoscopic choledochotomy for clearance of selected bile duct calculi: a randomized trial. Annals of Surgery 2005;242(2):188‐92. [MEDLINE: ] - PMC - PubMed
Neoptolemos 1987 {published data only}
    1. Cotton PB. Endoscopic sphincterotomy before cholecystectomy?. HPB Surgery 1989;1(3):244‐7. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Neoptolemos JP, Carr‐Locke DL, Fossard DP. Prospective randomised study of preoperative endoscopic sphincterotomy versus surgery alone for common bile duct stones. BMJ (Clinical Research Ed) 1987;294(6570):470‐4. - PMC - PubMed
Noble 2009 {published data only}
    1. Noble H, Tranter S, Chesworth T, Norton S, Thompson MD. 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. Journal of Laparoendoscopic and Advanced Surgical Techniques 2009;19(6):713‐20. - PubMed
Rhodes 1998 {published data only}
    1. 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. - PubMed
Rogers 2010 {published data only}
    1. Rogers S, Cello JP, Horn JK, Siperstein A, Campbell A, Mackersie R, et al. Randomized controlled clinical trial of laparascopic cholecystectomy plus laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LC+LCBDE) vs ERCP sphincterotomy plus laparascopic cholecystectomy (ERCP/S+LC) for common bile duct stone disease [abstract]. Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology 1999;14(Suppl):S110.
    1. Rogers SJ, Cello JP, Horn JK, Siperstein AE, Schecter WP, Campbell AR, et al. Prospective randomised trial of LC+LCBDE vs ERCP/S+LC for common bile duct stone disease. Archives of Surgery 2010;145(1):28‐33. - PubMed
Sgourakis 2002 {published data only}
    1. 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 Chirurgica 2002;57(4):467‐74. - PubMed
Stain 1991 {published data only}
    1. Stain SC, Cohen H, Tsuishoysha M, Donovan AJ. Choledocholithiasis. Endoscopic sphincterotomy or common bile duct exploration. Annals of Surgery 1991;213(6):627‐34. - PMC - PubMed
Stiegmann 1992 {published data only}
    1. Stiegmann GV, Goff JS, Mansour A, Pearlman N, Reveille RM, Norton L. Precholecystectomy endoscopic cholangiography and stone removal is not superior to cholecystectomy, cholangiography, and common duct exploration. American Journal of Surgery 1992;163(2):227‐30. - PubMed
Suc 1998 {published data only}
    1. Suc B, Escat J, Cherqui D, Fourtanier G, Hay JM, Fingerhut A, et al. Surgery vs endoscopy as primary treatment in symptomatic patients with suspected common bile duct stones: a multicenter randomized trial. French Associations for Surgical Research. Archives of Surgery 1998;133(7):702‐8. - PubMed
Targarona 1996 {published data only}
    1. Targarona EM, Perez Ayuso RM, Bordas JM, Ros E, Pros I, Martinez J, et al. Randomised trial of endoscopic sphincterotomy with gall bladder left in situ versus open surgery for common bile duct calculi in high risk patients. Lancet 1996;347:926‐9. - PubMed

References to studies excluded from this review

Airan 1992 {published data only}
    1. Airan M, Appel M, Berci G, Coburg AJ, Cohen M, Cuschieri A, et al. Retrospective and prospective multi‐institutional laparoscopic cholecystectomy study organized by the Society of American Gastrointestinal Endoscopic Surgeons. Surgical Endoscopy 1992;6(4):169‐78. - PubMed
Ammori 2000 {published data only}
    1. Ammori BJ, Birbas K, Davides D, Vezakis A, Larvin M, McMahon MJ. Routine vs "on demand" postoperative ERCP for small bile duct calculi detected at intraoperative cholangiography. Clinical evaluation and cost analysis. Surgical Endoscopy 2000;14(12):1123‐6. - PubMed
Andreasen 1998 {published data only}
    1. Andreasen DA, Larsen JF. ERCP and laparoscopic cholecystectomy [ERCP og laparoskopisk kolecystektomi]. Ugeskrift for Laeger 1998;160(32):4626‐9. - PubMed
Berci 1994 {published data only}
    1. Berci G, Morgenstern L. Laparoscopic management of common bile duct stones. A multi‐institutional SAGES study. Society of American Gastrointestinal Endoscopic Surgeons. Surgical Endoscopy 1994;8(10):1168‐75. - PubMed
Bergamaschi 1999 {published data only}
    1. Bergamaschi R, Tuech JJ, Braconier L, Walsoe HK, Marvik R, Boyet J, et al. Selective endoscopic retrograde cholangiography prior to laparoscopic cholecystectomy for gallstones. American Journal of Surgery 1999;178(1):46‐9. - PubMed
Boeckl 1988 {published data only}
    1. Boeckl O, Heinerman M, Pimpl W. Influence of preoperative selective endoscopy on the results and treatment concept of bile duct surgery [Einfluss der praoperativen selektiven Endoskopie auf Resultate und Therapiekonzept der Gallengangschirurgie]. Deutsche Medizinische Wochenschrift 1988;113(50):1950‐5. - PubMed
Boerma 2002 {published data only}
    1. Boerma D, Rauws EA, Keulemans YC, Janssen IM, Bolwerk CJ, Timmer R, et al. Wait‐and‐see policy or laparoscopic cholecystectomy after endoscopic sphincterotomy for bile‐duct stones: a randomised trial. Lancet 2002;360:761‐5. - PubMed
Bonatsos 1996 {published data only}
    1. Bonatsos G, Leandros E, Polydorou A, Romanos A, Dourakis N, Birbas C, et al. ERCP in association with laparoscopic cholecystectomy. A strategy to minimize the number of unnecessary ERCPs. Surgical Endoscopy 1996;10(1):37‐40. - PubMed
Budzynski 1997 {published data only}
    1. Budzynski A, Bobrzynski A, Rembiasz K, Biesiada Z, Dutkiewicz W. The problem of common bile duct calculi in the era of laparoscopic cholecystectomy [Problem kamicy przewodowej w dobie cholecystektomii laparoskopowej]. Wiadomosci Lekarskie 1997;50(Suppl 1 Pt 1):235‐8. - PubMed
Cemachovic 2000 {published data only}
    1. Cemachovic I, Letard JC, Begin GF, Rousseau D, Nivet JM. Intraoperative endoscopic sphincterotomy is a reasonable option for complete single‐stage minimally invasive biliary stones treatment: short‐term experience with 57 patients. Endoscopy 2000;32(12):956‐62. - PubMed
Chan 1996 {published data only}
    1. Chan AC, Chung SC, Wyman A, Kwong KH, Ng EK, Lau JY, et al. Selective use of preoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy 1996;43(3):212‐5. - PubMed
Chang 2000 {published data only}
    1. Chang L, Lo S, Stabile BE, Lewis RJ, Toosie K, Virgilio C. Preoperative versus postoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in mild to moderate gallstone pancreatitis: a prospective randomized trial. Annals of Surgery 2000;231(1):82‐7. - PMC - PubMed
Cisek 1994 {published data only}
    1. Cisek PL, Greaney GC. The role of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography with laparoscopic cholecystectomy in the management of choledocholithiasis. American Surgeon 1994;60(10):772‐6. - PubMed
Conigliaro 1995 {published data only}
    1. Conigliaro R, Ricci E, Sassatelli R, Pacchione D, Bertoni G, Mortilla MG, et al. Common bile duct stones and cholecystectomy: a prospective multicentric study comparing different treatments. Giornale Italiano di Endoscopia Digestiva 1995;18(4):237‐45.
Coppola 1996 {published data only}
    1. Coppola R, D'Ugo D, Ciletti S, Riccioni ME, Cosentino L, Magistrelli P, et al. ERCP in the era of laparoscopic biliary surgery. Experience with 407 patients. Surgical Endoscopy 1996;10(4):403‐6. - PubMed
Daradkeh 2000 {published data only}
    1. Daradkeh S, Shennak M, Abu‐Khalaf M. Selective use of perioperative ERCP in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Hepato‐Gastroenterology 2000;47(35):1213‐5. - PubMed
Davis 1997 {published data only}
    1. Davis WZ, Cotton PB, Arias R, Williams D, Onken JE. ERCP and sphincterotomy in the context of laparoscopic cholecystectomy: academic and community practice patterns and results. American Journal of Gastroenterology 1997;92(4):597‐601. - PubMed
Decker 2003 {published data only}
    1. Decker G, Borie F, Millat B, Berthou JC, Deleuze A, Drouard F, et al. One hundred laparoscopic choledochotomies with primary closure of the common bile duct. Surgical Endoscopy 2003;17(1):12‐8. - PubMed
Dias 2002 {published data only}
    1. Dias MM, Martin CJ, Cox MR. Pattern of management of common bile duct stones in the laparoscopic era: a NSW survey. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Surgery 2002;72(3):181‐5. - PubMed
Drouard 1995 {published data only}
    1. Drouard F, Passone‐Szerzyna N, Berthou JC. Laparoscopic treatment of common bile duct calculi [Traitement laparoscopique de la lithiase de la voie biliaire principale]. Annales de Chirurgie 1995;49(7):596‐601. - PubMed
Drouard 1997 {published data only}
    1. Drouard F, Passone‐Szerzyna N, Berthou JC. Laparoscopic treatment of common bile duct stones. Hepato‐Gastroenterology 1997;44(13):16‐21. - PubMed
Ebner 2004 {published data only}
    1. Ebner S, Rechner J, Beller S, Erhart K, Riegler FM, Szinicz G. Laparoscopic management of common bile duct stones. Surgical Endoscopy and Other Interventional Techniques 2004;18(5):762‐5. - PubMed
El Geidie 2011 {published data only}
    1. Geidie AA, Ebidy GK, Naeem YM. Preoperative versus intraoperative endoscopic sphincterotomy for management of common bile duct stones. Surgical Endoscopy 2011;25:1230‐7. - PubMed
Fanning 1997 {published data only}
    1. Fanning NF, Horgan PG, Keane FBV. Evolving management of common bile duct stones in the laparoscopic era. Journal of the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh 1997;42:389‐94. - PubMed
Frazee 1993 {published data only}
    1. Frazee RC, Roberts J, Symmonds R, Hendricks JC, Snyder S, Smith R, et al. Combined laparoscopic and endoscopic management of cholelithiasis and choledocholithiasis. American Journal of Surgery 1993;166(6):702‐6. - PubMed
Galloway 1994 {published data only}
    1. Galloway SW, Blazeby J, Tulloh B, Poskitt KR. Combined laparoscopic and endoscopic treatment of gallstones and bile duct stones: a prospective study. British Journal of Surgery 1994;81(11):1699‐70. - PubMed
Giurgiu 1999 {published data only}
    1. Giurgiu DI, Margulies DR, Carroll BJ, Gabbay J, Iida A, Takagi S, et al. Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration: long‐term outcome. Archives of Surgery 1999;134(8):839‐44. - PubMed
Gonzalez 1989 {published data only}
    1. Gonzalez JC, Gomis J, Zoghbi S, Capozzolo N, Aldana K, Nino M, et al. Preoperative endoscopic sphincterotomy [Esfinterotomia endoscopica preoperatoria]. Genetic Engineering News 1989;43(4):247‐50. - PubMed
Hamy 2003 {published data only}
    1. Hamy A, Hennekinne S, Pessaux P, Lada P, Randriamananjo S, Lermite E, et al. Endoscopic sphincterotomy prior to laparoscopic cholecystectomy for the treatment of cholelithiasis. Surgical Endoscopy 2003;17:872‐5. - PubMed
Heili 1999 {published data only}
    1. Heili M, Wintz NK, Fowler DL. Choledocholithiasis: endoscopic versus laparoscopic management. American Surgeon 1999;2:135‐8. - PubMed
Heinerman 1989 {published data only}
    1. Heinerman PM, Boeckl O, Pimpl W. Selective ERCP and preoperative stone removal in bile duct surgery. Annals of Surgery 1989;209(3):267‐72. - PMC - PubMed
Hoyuela 1999 {published data only}
    1. Hoyuela C, Cugat E, Bretcha P, Collera P, Espinos J, Marco C. Must ERCP be routinely performed if choledocholithiasis is suspected?. Digestive Surgery 1999;16(5):411‐4. - PubMed
Hui 2002 {published data only}
    1. Hui CK, Lai KC, Wong WM, Yuen MF, Lam SK, Lai CL. A randomised controlled trial of endoscopic sphincterotomy in acute cholangitis without common bile duct stones. Gut 2002;51:245‐7. - PMC - PubMed
Huynh 1996 {published data only}
    1. Huynh CH, Stadt J, Deviere J, Mehdi A, Nakadi I, Cremer M, et al. Preoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: therapeutic impact in a general population of patients needing a cholecystectomy. Hepato‐Gastroenterology 1996;43(12):1484‐91. - PubMed
Kapoor 1994 {published data only}
    1. Kapoor R, Pradeep R, Sikora SS, Saxena R, Kapoor VK, Kaushik SP. Appraisal of surgical and endoscopic management of choledocholithiasis. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Surgery 1994;64(9):599‐603. - PubMed
Khuroo 1989 {published data only}
    1. Khuroo MS, Mahajan R, Zargar SA, Javid G, Banday M. Endoscopic vs surgical drainage of biliary tract in acute pyogenic cholangitis: a controlled study. Indian Journal of Gastroenterology 1989;8(2):119. - PubMed
Kullman 1996 {published data only}
    1. Kullman E, Borch K, Lindstrom E, Svanvik J, Anderberg B. Management of bile duct stones in the era of laparoscopic cholecystectomy: appraisal of routine operative cholangiography and endoscopic treatment. European Journal of Surgery 1996;162(11):873‐80. - PubMed
Lai 1992 {published data only}
    1. Lai EC, Mok FP, Tan ES, Lo CM, Fan ST, You KT, et al. Endoscopic biliary drainage for severe acute cholangitis. New England Journal of Medicine 1992;326(24):1582‐6. - PubMed
Lella 2006 {published data only}
    1. Lella F, Bagnolo F, Rebuffat C, Scalambra M, Bonassi U, Colombo E. Use of the laparoscopic‐endoscopic approach, the so‐called "rendezvous" technique, in cholecystocholedocholithiasis. Surgical Endoscopy 2006;20:419‐23. - PubMed
Lezoche 1996 {published data only}
    1. Lezoche E, Paganini AM, Carlei F, Feliciotti F, Lomanto D, Guerrieri M. Laparoscopic treatment of gallbladder and common bile duct stones: a prospective study. World Journal of Surgery 1996;20(5):535‐41. - PubMed
Lezoche 2000 {published data only}
    1. Lezoche E, Paganini AM. Technical considerations and laparoscopic bile duct exploration: transcystic and choledochotomy. Seminars in Laparoscopic Surgery 2000;7(4):262‐78. - PubMed
Liberman 1996 {published data only}
    1. Liberman MA, Phillips EH, Carroll BJ, Fallas MJ, Rosenthal R, Hiatt J. Cost‐effective management of complicated choledocholithiasis: laparoscopic transcystic duct exploration or endoscopic sphincterotomy. Journal of the American College of Surgeons 1996;182:488‐94. - PubMed
Liu 1996 {published data only}
    1. Liu CL, Lai EC, Lo CM, Chu KM, Fan ST, Wong J. Combined laparoscopic and endoscopic approach in patients with cholelithiasis and choledocholithiasis. Surgery 1996;119(5):534‐7. - PubMed
Magnanini 1994 {published data only}
    1. Magnanini F, Peralta C, Pardo R, Curras A, Zalar A, Olmos M. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: before and after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Acta Gastroenterologica Latinoamericana 1994;24(4):213‐7. - PubMed
Martin 1998 {published data only}
    1. Martin IJ, Bailey IS, Rhodes M, O'Rourke N, Nathanson L, Fielding G. Towards T‐tube free laparoscopic bile duct exploration: a methodologic evolution during 300 consecutive procedures. Annals of Surgery 1998;228(1):29‐34. - PMC - PubMed
Martin 2002 {published data only}
    1. Martin CJ, Cox MR, Vaccaro L. Laparoscopic transcystic bile duct stenting in the management of common bile duct stones. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Surgery 2002;72(4):258‐64. - PubMed
Masci 1999 {published data only}
    1. Masci E, Fanti L, Mariani A, Guerini S, Zuliani W, Baccari P, et al. Selection criteria for pre‐operative endoscopic retrograde cholangiography and endoscopic‐laparoscopic treatment of biliary stones. European Journal of Gastroenterology & Hepatology 1999;11(7):781‐4. - PubMed
Materia 1996 {published data only}
    1. Materia A, Pizzuto G, Silecchia G, Fiocca F, Fantini A, Spaziani E, et al. Sequential endoscopic‐laparoscopic treatment of cholecystocholedocholithiasis. Surgical Laparoscopy, Endoscopy & Percutaneous Techniques 1996;6(4):273‐7. - PubMed
Meyer 1999 {published data only}
    1. Meyer C, Le JV, Rohr S, Thiry LC, Bourtoul C, Duclos B, et al. Management of common bile duct stones by laparoscopic cholecystectomy and endoscopic sphincterotomy: pre‐, per‐ or postoperative sphincterotomy?. Digestive Surgery 1999;16(1):26‐31. - PubMed
Meyer 2002 {published data only}
    1. Meyer C, Le JV, Rohr S, Duclos B, Reimund JM, Baumann R. Management of common bile duct stones in a single operation combining laparoscopic cholecystectomy and peroperative endoscopic sphincterotomy. Journal of Hepato‐Biliary‐Pancreatic Surgery 2002;9(2):196‐200. - PubMed
Michel 2000 {published data only}
    1. Michel J, Navarro F, Montpeyroux F, Burgel JS, Moine MC, Daures JP, et al. Treatment of common bile duct stones with laparoscopy. Retrospective multicenter study with 612 patients [Traitement de la lithiase de la voie biliaire principale sous laparoscopie. Etude retrospective multicentrique chez 612 malades]. Gastroenterologie Clinique et Biologique 2000;24(4):404‐8. - PubMed
Mijal 1997 {published data only}
    1. Mijal M, Ciechanski A, Chmurzynski M, Zinkiewicz K, Cwik G, Misiuna P. Comparison of combined (endoscopic sphincterotomy + laparoscopic cholecystectomy) and classical treatment of obstructive jaundice in the course of cholelithiasis [Porownanie wynikow skojarzonego (ES + ChL) i klasycznego leczenia zoltaczki mechanicznej w przebiegu kamicy zolciowej]. Wiadomosci Lekarskie 1997;50(Suppl 1 Pt 1):242‐5. - PubMed
Millat 1995 {published data only}
    1. Millat B, Fingerhut A, Deleuze A, Briandet H, Marrel E, Seguin C, et al. Prospective evaluation in 121 consecutive unselected patients undergoing laparoscopic treatment of choledocholithiasis. British Journal of Surgery 1995;82(9):1266‐9. - PubMed
Millat 1996 {published data only}
    1. Millat B, Deleuze A, Atger J, Briandet H, Fingerhut A, Marrel E, et al. Treatment of common bile duct lithiasis under laparoscopy. A prospective multicenter study in 189 patients [Traitement de la lithiase de la voie biliaire principale sous laparoscopie]. Gastroenterologie Clinique et Biologique 1996;20(4):339‐45. - PubMed
Millat 1997 {published data only}
    1. Millat B, Atger J, Deleuze A, Briandet H, Fingerhut A, Guillon F, et al. Laparoscopic treatment for choledocholithiasis: a prospective evaluation in 247 consecutive unselected patients. Hepato‐Gastroenterology 1997;44(13):28‐34. - PubMed
Miller 1988 {published data only}
    1. Miller BM, Kozarek RA, Ryan JA, Ball TJ, Traverso LW. Surgical versus endoscopic management of common bile duct stones. Annals of Surgery 1988;207(2):135‐41. - PMC - PubMed
Mo 2002 {published data only}
    1. Mo LR, Chang KK, Wang CH, Yau MP, Yang TM. Preoperative endoscopic sphincterotomy in the treatment of patients with cholecystocholedocholithiasis. Journal of Hepato‐Biliary‐Pancreatic Surgery 2002;9(2):191‐5. - PubMed
Moreaux 1995 {published data only}
    1. Moreaux J. Traditional surgical management of common bile duct stones: a prospective study during a 20‐year experience. American Journal of Surgery 1995;169(2):220‐6. - PubMed
Morino 2006 {published data only}
    1. Morino M, Baracchi F, Miglietta C, Furlan N, Ragona R, Garbarini A. Preoperative endoscopic sphincterotomy versus laparo endoscopic rendezvous in patients with gallbladder and bile duct stones. Annals of Surgery 2006;244(6):889‐96. - PMC - PubMed
Neoptolemos 89 {published data only}
    1. Neoptolemos JP, Shaw DE, Carr‐Locke DL. A multivariate analysis of preoperative risk factors in patients with common bile duct stones. Implications for treatment. Annals of Surgery 1989;209(2):157‐61. - PMC - PubMed
Neuhaus 1992 {published data only}
    1. Neuhaus H, Ungeheuer A, Feussner H, Classen M, Siewert JR. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy: ERCP as standard preoperative diagnostic technique [Laparoskopische Cholezystektomie: ERCP als preoperative Standarddiagnostik?]. Deutsche Medizinische Wochenschrift 1992;117(49):1863‐7. - PubMed
Niu 1995 {published data only}
    1. Niu J, Shou NH, Forbes JF, Sun XY, Hu SY, Liu FJ. Laparoscopic exploration of intra‐ and extrahepatic bile ducts and T‐tube drainage. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Surgery 1995;65(3):189‐93. - PubMed
Paganini 1998 {published data only}
    1. Paganini AM, Lezoche E. Follow‐up of 161 unselected consecutive patients treated laparoscopically for common bile duct stones. Surgical Endoscopy 1998;12(1):23‐9. - PubMed
Palacios‐Macedo 1995 {published data only}
    1. Palacios‐Macedo A, Herrera MF, Moran MA, Gonzalez Garcia M, Chan Nunez C, Hernandez‐Ortiz J. Endoscopy and laparoscopy in the treatment of lithiasic cholecystitis associated with benign bile duct obstruction [Endoscopia y laparoscopia en el tratamiento de la colecistitis litiasica asociada a obstruccion benigna de via biliar]. Revista de Investigacion Clinica 1995;47(2):103‐7. - PubMed
Pedersen 1998 {published data only}
    1. Pedersen FM, Brandt CJ, Schaffalitzky de Muckadell OB. Choledocholithiasis. Endoscopic treatment of 416 consecutive patients [Choledocholitiasis. Endoskopisk behandling af 416 konsekutive patienter]. Ugeskrift for Laeger 1998;160(45):6526‐9. - PubMed
Pereira‐Lima 2001 {published data only}
    1. Pereira‐Lima JC, Rynkowski CB, Rhoden EL. Endoscopic treatment of choledocholithiasis in the era of laparoscopic cholecystectomy: prospective analysis of 386 patients. Hepato‐Gastroenterology 2001;48(41):1271‐4. - PubMed
Perniceni 2001 {published data only}
    1. Perniceni T, Alves A, Levard H, Boudet MJ, Denet C, Gayet B. Can common bile duct lithiasis be removed laparoscopically without external biliary drainage? [Le traitement laparoscopique de la lithiase de la voie biliaire principale sans drainage biliaire externe est‐il possible?]. Gastroenterologie Clinique et Biologique 2001;25(2):149‐53. - PubMed
Phillips 1995 {published data only}
    1. Phillips EH, Liberman M, Carroll BJ, Fallas MJ, Rosenthal R, Hiatt J. Bile duct stones in the laparoscopic era: is pre‐operative sphincterotomy necessary?. Archives of Surgery 1995;130:880‐6. - PubMed
Quershi 1993 {published data only}
    1. Quershi A, Browne A, Leahy AL, Courtney G, Osborne H, Broe PJ, et al. ERCP in the management of patients having laparoscopic cholecystectomy: re‐appraising current indications. Irish Journal of Medical Science 1993;162(12):510‐2. - PubMed
Rabago 2006 {published data only}
    1. Rabago LR, Vincente C, Soler F, Delgado M, Moral I, Guerra I, et al. Two‐stage treatment with preoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) compared with single‐stage treatment with intraoperative ERCP for patients with symptomatic cholelithiasis with possible choledocholithiasis. Endoscopy 2006;38(8):779‐86. - PubMed
Rhodes 1995 {published data only}
    1. Rhodes M, Nathanson L, O'Rourke N, Fielding G. Laparoscopic exploration of the common bile duct: lessons learned from 129 consecutive cases. British Journal of Surgery 1995;82:666‐8. - PubMed
Rieger 1994 {published data only}
    1. Rieger R, Sulzbacher H, Woisetschlager R, Schrenk P, Wayand W. Selective use of ERCP in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy. World Journal of Surgery 1994;18(6):900‐4; discussion 904‐5. - PubMed
Rieger 1995 {published data only}
    1. Rieger R, Wayand W. Yield of prospective, noninvasive evaluation of the common bile duct combined with selective ERCP/sphincterotomy in 1390 consecutive laparoscopic cholecystectomy patients. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy 1995;42(1):6‐12. - PubMed
Rijna 2000 {published data only}
    1. Rijna H, Kemps WG, Eijsbouts Q, Meuwissen SG, Cuesta MA. Preoperative ERCP approach to common bile duct stones: results of a selective policy. Digestive Surgery 2000;17(3):229‐33. - PubMed
Robertson 1996 {published data only}
    1. Robertson GS, Jagger C, Johnson PR, Rathbone BJ, Wicks AC, Lloyd DM, et al. Selection criteria for preoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in the laparoscopic era. Archives of Surgery 1996;131(1):89‐94. - PubMed
Robinson 1995 {published data only}
    1. Robinson G, Hollinshead J, Falk G, Moulton J. Technique and results of laparoscopic choledochotomy for the management of bile duct calculi. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Surgery 1995;65(5):347‐9. - PubMed
Roush 1995 {published data only}
    1. Roush TS, Traverso LW. Management and long‐term follow‐up of patients with positive cholangiograms during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. American Journal of Surgery 1995;169(5):484‐7. - PubMed
Santucci 1996 {published data only}
    1. Santucci L, Natalini G, Sarpi L, Fiorucci S, Solinas A, Morelli A. Selective endoscopic retrograde cholangiography and preoperative bile duct stone removal in patients scheduled for laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a prospective study. American Journal of Gastroenterology 1996;91(7):1326‐30. - PubMed
Sarli 1999 {published data only}
    1. Sarli L, Pietra N, Franze A, Colla G, Costi R, Gobbi S, et al. Routine intravenous cholangiography, selective ERCP, and endoscopic treatment of bile duct stones before laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy 1999;50(2):200‐8. - PubMed
Schwab 1992 {published data only}
    1. Schwab G, Pointner R, Wetscher G, Glaser K, Foltin E, Bodner E. Treatment of calculi of the common bile duct. Surgery, Gynecology and Obstetrics 1992;175(2):115‐20. - PubMed
Seo 2000 {published data only}
    1. Seo DW. Prospective analysis of endoscopic papillary balloon dilatation and endoscopic sphincterotomy for removal of common bile duct stones. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy 2000;52(1):140‐2. - PubMed
Stoker 1995 {published data only}
    1. Stoker ME. Common bile duct exploration in the era of laparoscopic surgery. Archives of Surgery 1995;130(3):265‐9. - PubMed
Sugiyama 1999 {published data only}
    1. Sugiyama M, Izumisato Y, Hatano N, Mori T, Atomi Y. Management of unsuspected common bile duct stones found during laparoscopic cholecystectomy by means of transcystic catheter placement and papillary dilation. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy 1999;50(6):837‐40. - PubMed
Sungler 1993 {published data only}
    1. Sungler P, Heinerman PM, Mayer F, Boeckl O. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy in cholecysto‐choledocholithiasis. "Therapeutic splitting" or conventional surgical procedure?. Chirurg 1993;64(12):1012‐5; discussion 1016‐7. - PubMed
Sungler 1997 {published data only}
    1. Sungler P, Holzinger J, Heinerman PM, Waclawiczek HW, Boeckl O. Preoperative therapeutic splitting [Preoperatives therapeutisches splitting]. Zentralblatt fur Chirurgie 1997;122(12):1083‐7. - PubMed
Tham 1998 {published data only}
    1. Tham TC, Lichtenstein DR, Vandervoort J, Wong RC, Brooks D, Dam J, et al. Role of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography for suspected choledocholithiasis in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy 1998;47(1):50‐6. - PubMed
Trias 1997 {published data only}
    1. Trias M, Targarona EM, Ros E, Bordas JM, Perez Ayuso RM, Balague C, et al. Prospective evaluation of a minimally invasive approach for treatment of bile‐duct calculi in the high‐risk patient. Surgical Endoscopy 1997;11(6):632‐5. - PubMed
Trondsen 1995 {published data only}
    1. Trondsen E, Edwin B, Reiertsen O, Fagertun H, Rosseland AR. Selection criteria for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreaticography (ERCP) in patients with gallstone disease. World Journal of Surgery 1995;19(6):852‐7. - PubMed
Turcu 1997 {published data only}
    1. Turcu F. A minimally invasive approach in choledocholithiasis [Abordul miniinvaziv al litiazei de cale biliara principala]. Chirurgia (Bucuresti) 1997;92(3):145‐53. - PubMed
Waage 2003 {published data only}
    1. Waage A, Stromberg C, Leijonmarck CE, Arvidsson D. Long‐term results from laparoscopic common bile duct exploration. Surgical Endoscopy and Other Interventional Techniques 2003;17(8):1181‐5. - PubMed
Welbourn 1995 {published data only}
    1. Welbourn CR, Mehta D, Armstrong CP, Gear MW, Eyre‐Brook IA. Selective preoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiography with sphincterotomy avoids bile duct exploration during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Gut 1995;37(4):576‐9. - PMC - PubMed
Wenner 2005 {published data only}
    1. Wenner DE, Whitwam P, Rosser J, Hashmi S, Wenner DE. A stone extraction facilitation device to achieve an improved technique for performing LCBDE. Surgical Endoscopy and Other Interventional Techniques 2005;19(1):120‐5. - PubMed
Widdison 1994 {published data only}
    1. Widdison AL, Longstaff AJ, Armstrong CP. Combined laparoscopic and endoscopic treatment of gallstones and bile duct stones: a prospective study. British Journal of Surgery 1994;81(4):595‐7. - PubMed
Wilson 1993 {published data only}
    1. Wilson TG, Jeans PL, Anthony A, Cox MR, Toouli J. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy and management of choledocholithiasis. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Surgery 1993;63(6):443‐50. - PubMed
Worthley 1989 {published data only}
    1. Worthley CS, Watts JM, Toouli J. Common duct exploration or endoscopic sphincterotomy for choledocholithiasis?. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Surgery 1989;59(3):209‐15. - PubMed
Zargar 2002 {published data only}
    1. Zagar SA, Javid G, Khan, et al. Endoscopic sphincterotomy in the management of the commmon bile duct stones: results in 170 patients. JK Practitioner 2002;9:20‐3.

Additional references

Begg 1996
    1. Begg C, Cho M, Eastwood S, Horton R, Moher D, Olkin I, et al. Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials. The CONSORT statement. JAMA 1996;276:637‐9. - PubMed
Brok 2008
    1. Brok J, Thorlund K, Gluud C, Wetterslev J. Trial sequential analysis reveals insufficient information size and potentially false positive results in many meta‐analyses. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2008;61:763‐9. - PubMed
Brok 2009
    1. Brok J, Thorlund K, Wetterslev J, Gluud C. Apparently conclusive meta‐analyses may be inconclusive‐‐Trial sequential analysis adjustment of random error risk due to repetitive testing of accumulating data in apparently conclusive neonatal meta‐analyses. International Journal of Epidemiology 2009;38(1):287‐98. - PubMed
Clayton 2006
    1. Clayton ES, Connor S, Alexakis N, Leandros E. Meta‐analysis of endoscopy and surgery versus surgery alone for common bile duct stones with the gallbladder in situ. British Journal of Surgery 2006;93(10):1185‐91. - PubMed
Coelho‐Prabhu 2013
    1. Coelho‐Prabhu N, Shah ND, Houten H, Kamath PS, Baron TH. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: utilisation and outcomes in a 10‐year population‐based cohort. BMJ Open 2013;3(5):e002689. - PMC - PubMed
Collins 2004
    1. Collins C, Maguire D, Ireland A Fitzgerald E, O'Sullivan GC. A prospective study of common bile duct calculi in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a natural history of choledocholithiasis revisited. Annals of Surgery 2004;239:28‐33. - PMC - PubMed
CTU 2011
    1. Copenhagen Trial Unit. TSA ‐ Trial Sequential Analysis. http://ctu.dk/tsa/ 2011 (accessed 5 July 2013).
Egger 1997
    1. Egger M, Davey SG, Schneider M, Minder C. Bias in meta‐analysis detected by a simple, graphical test.. BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) 1997;315(7109):629‐34. - PMC - PubMed
Fletcher 1994
    1. Fletcher DR. Changes in the practice of biliary surgery and ERCP during the introduction of laparoscopic cholecystectomy to Australia: their possible significance. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Surgery 1994;64(2):75‐80. - PubMed
Gluud 2013
    1. Gluud C, Nikolova D, Klingenberg SL, Alexakis N, Als‐Nielsen B, Colli A, et al. Cochrane Hepato‐Biliary Group. About The Cochrane Collaboration (Cochrane Review Groups (CRGs)). 2013, Issue 7. Art. No.: LIVER.
Gurusamy 2009
    1. Gurusamy KS, Gluud C, Nikolova D, Davidson BR. Assessment of risk of bias in randomized clinical trials in surgery. British Journal of Surgery 2009;96(4):342‐9. - PubMed
Hozo 2005
    1. Hozo SP, Djulbegovic B, Hozo I. Estimating the mean and variance from median, range, and the size of a sample. BMC Medical Research Methodology 2005;5:13. - PMC - PubMed
Kjaergard 2001
    1. Kjaergard LL, Villumsen J, Gluud C. Reported methodologic quality and discrepancies between large and small randomized trials in meta‐analyses. Annals of Internal Medicine 2001;135(11):982‐9. - PubMed
Ko 2002
    1. Ko CW, Lee SP. Epidemiology and natural history of common bile duct stones and prediction of disease. Review. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy 2002;56(6 Suppl):S165‐S169. [MEDLINE: ] - PubMed
Lundh 2012
    1. Lundh A, Sismondo S, Lexchin J, Busuioc OA, Bero L. Industry sponsorship and research outcome. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2012, Issue 12. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.MR000033.pub2] - DOI - PubMed
Macaskill 2001
    1. Macaskill P, Walter SD, Irwig L. A comparision of methods to detect publication bias in meta‐analysis. Statistics in Medicine 2001;20(4):641‐54. - PubMed
Mercer 2007
    1. Mercer S, Singh S, Paterson I. Selective MRCP in the management of suspected common bile duct stones. HPB (Oxford) 2007;9:125‐30. - PMC - PubMed
Moher 1998
    1. Moher D, Pham B, Jones A, Cook DJ, Jadad AR, Moher M, et al. Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta‐analyses?. Lancet 1998;352(9128):609‐13. - PubMed
Neoptolemos 1989
    1. Neoptolemos JP, Rowley S. Advantages of nonsurgical treatment of bile duct stones. Hepato‐Gastroenterology 1989;36(5):313‐6. - PubMed
Newell 1992
    1. Newell DJ. Intention‐tot‐treat analysis: implications for quantitative and qualitative research. International Journal of Epidemiology 1992;21(5):837‐41. - PubMed
RevMan 2012 [Computer program]
    1. The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration. Review Manager (RevMan). Version 5.2. Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2012.
Rojas‐Ortega 2003
    1. Rojas‐Ortega S, Arizpe‐Bravo D, Marín López ER, Cesin‐Sánchez R, Roman GR, Gómez C. Transcystic common bile duct exploration in the management of patients with choledocholithiasis. Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery 2003;7(4):492‐6. - PubMed
Savovic 2012a
    1. Savovic J, Jones HE, Altman DG, Harris RJ, Jüni P, Pildal J, et al. Influence of reported study design characteristics on intervention effect estimates from randomized, controlled trials. Health Technology Assessment 2012;16(35):1‐82. - PubMed
Savovic 2012b
    1. Savovic J, Jones HE, Altman DG, Harris RJ, Jüni P, Pildal J, et al. Influence of reported study design characteristics on intervention effect estimates from randomized, controlled trials. Annals of Internal Medicine 2012;157(6):429‐38. - PubMed
Schulz 1995
    1. Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Hayes RJ, Altman DG. Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. JAMA 1995;273(5):408‐12. - PubMed
Soltan 2000
    1. Soltan, Kow, Toouli. A simple scoring system for predicting bile duct stones in patients with cholelithiasis. Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery 2001;5(4):434‐7. - PubMed
SPIRIT 2013
    1. Chan AW, Tetzlaff JM, Altman DG, Laupacis A, Gøtzsche PC, Krleža‐Jerić K, et al. SPIRIT 2013 Statement: defining standard protocol items for clinical trials. Annals of Internal Medicine 2013;158:200‐7. - PMC - PubMed
Stinton 2012
    1. Stinton LM, Shaffer EA. Epidemiology of gallbladder disease: cholelithiasis and cancer. Gut and Liver 2012;6:172‐87. - PMC - PubMed
Tazuma 2006
    1. Tazuma S. Epidemiology, pathogenesis, and classification of biliary stones (common bile duct and intrahepatic). Best Practice and Research Clinical Gastroenterology 2006;20:1075‐83. - PubMed
Thorlund 2009
    1. Thorlund K, Devereaux PJ, Wetterslev J, Guyatt G, Ioannidis JP, Thabane L, et al. Can trial sequential monitoring boundaries reduce spurious inferences from meta‐analyses. International Journal of Epidemiology 2009;38(1):276‐86. - PubMed
Thorlund 2010
    1. Thorlund K, Anema A, Mills E. Interpreting meta‐analysis according to the adequacy of sample size. An example using isoniazid chemoprophylaxis for tuberculosis in purified protein derivative negative HIV‐infected individuals. Clinical Epidemiology 2010;2:57‐66. - PMC - PubMed
Thorlund 2011
    1. Thorlund K, Engstrøm J, Wetterslev J, Brok J, Imberger G, Gluud C. User manual forTrial Sequential Analysis (TSA). http://ctu.dk/tsa/files/tsa_manual.pdf 2011 (accessed 5 July 2013).
Wetterslev 2008
    1. Wetterslev J, Thorlund K, Brok J, Gluud C. Trial sequential analysis may establish when firm evidence is reached in cumulative meta‐analysis. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2008;61(1):64‐75. - PubMed
Wetterslev 2009
    1. Wetterslev J, Thorlund K, Brok J, Gluud C. Estimating required information size by quantifying diversity in random‐effects model meta‐analyses. BMC Medical Research Methodology 2009;9:86. - PMC - PubMed
Williams 2008
    1. Williams EJ, Green J, Beckingham I, Parks R, Martin D, Lombard M. Guidelines on the management of common bile duct stones (CBDS). Gut 2008;57:1004‐21. - PubMed
Wood 2008
    1. Wood L, Egger M, Gluud LL, Schulz KF, Jüni P, Altman GD, et al. Empirical evidence of bias in treatment effect estimates in controlled trials with different interventions and outcomes: meta‐epidemiological study. BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) 2008;336:601‐5. - PMC - PubMed

References to other published versions of this review

Martin 2006
    1. Martin DJ, Vernon D, Toouli J. Surgical versus endoscopic treatment of bile duct stones. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2006, Issue 2. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003327.pub2] - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms