Table 1. Characteristics of the 20 Included Studies.
| Source | Affiliation | Patients | Study Design | Sample Size of Each Arm | Outcomea | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LC + LCBDE (n = 915) | LC + PostERCP (n = 85) | PreERCP + LC (n = 878) | LC + IntraERCP (n = 611) |
|||||
| Rhodes et al,16 1998 | Norfolk and Norwich NHS Trust Hospital, United Kingdom | CBD stones confirmed by IOC | LC + LCBDE vs LC + PostERCP | 40 | 40 | NA | NA | A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H |
| Cuschieri et al,17 1999 | Multicenter study, Europe and Australia | CBD stones confirmed or suspected by US, biochemical, or clinical features | LC + LCBDE vs PreERCP + LC | 133b | NA | 133b | NA | A, B, C, D, E, F, H |
| Sgourakis and Karaliotas,18 2002 | Red Cross Hospital Korgialenio-Mpenakio, Athens, Greece | CBD stones confirmed or suspected by US, biochemical, or clinical features | LC + LCBDE vs PreERCP + LC | 36 | NA | 42 | NA | A, B, C, E, F, G |
| Nathanson et al,19 2005 | Royal Brisbane and Princess Alexandra Hospitals, Brisbane, Australia | CBD stones confirmed by IOC and not extractable by transcystic approach | LC + LCBDE vs LC + PostERCP | 41 | 45 | NA | NA | A, B, C, D, E, F |
| Hong et al,20 2006 | Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, Hangzhou, China | CBD stones confirmed by US, MRCP, or IOC | LC + LCBDE vs LC + IntraERCP | 141 | NA | NA | 93 | A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I |
| Lella et al,21 2006 | Policlinico San Marco, Zingonia, Italy | CBD stones confirmed by MRCP in patients with high risk of pancreatitis | PreERCP + LC vs LC + IntraERCP | NA | NA | 60 | 60 | A, B, C, D, E, F, H |
| Morino et al,22 2006 | Molinette Hospital, Turin, Italy | CBD stones confirmed by MRCP | PreERCP + LC vs LC + IntraERCP | NA | NA | 45 | 46 | A, B, C, D, E, F, H |
| Rábago et al,23 2006 | Severo Ochoa’s Hospital, Leganes, Spain | CBD stones suspected by US, biochemical, clinical features | PreERCP + LC vs LC + IntraERCP | NA | NA | 64 | 59 | A, B, C, D, E, F, H, I |
| Noble et al,24 2009 | Southmead Hospital, Bristol, United Kingdom | CBD stones confirmed by imaging or suspected by risk score | LC + LCBDE vs PreERCP + LC | 44 | NA | 47 | NA | A, B, C, D, E, F, H |
| Bansal et al,25 2010 | Multicenter study, New Delhi Hospitals, New Delhi, India | CBD stones confirmed by MRCP, or EUS | LC + LCBDE vs PreERCP + LC | 15 | NA | 15 | NA | A, B, C, D, E, F, H |
| Rogers et al,26 2010 | San Francisco General Hospital, San Francisco, California | CBD stones suspected by US, CT scan, or biochemical or clinical features | LC + LCBDE vs PreERCP + LC | 57 | NA | 54 | NA | A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I |
| ElGeidIe et al,27 2011c | Gastroenterology Surgical Center, Mansoura, Egypt | CBD stones confirmed with MRCP | PreERCP + LC vs LC + IntraERCP | NA | NA | 100 | 98 | A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H |
| ElGeidie et al,28 2011c | Gastroenterology Surgical Center, Mansoura, Egypt | CBD stones confirmed with IOC | LC + LCBDE vs LC + IntraERCP | 115 | NA | NA | 111 | A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H |
| Ferulano et al,29 2011 | Federico II Hospital, Naples, Italy | CBD stones confirmed or suspected by US, CT scan, MRCP, or biochemical or clinical features | LC + LCBDE vs PreERCP + LC | 45 | NA | 39 | NA | A, B, C, D, E, F |
| Tzovaras et al,30 2012 | Hospital of Larissa, Larissa, Greece | CBD stones confirmed by MRCP | PreERCP + LC vs LC + IntraERCP | NA | NA | 49 | 50 | A, B, C, D, E, F, H |
| Koc et al,31 2013 | Okmeydani Training and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey | CBD stones confirmed by US, MRCP, or biochemical features | LC + LCBDE vs PreERCP + LC | 57 | NA | 54 | NA | A, B, C, D, E, F, G |
| Ding et al,34 2014 | Tianjin Nankai Hospital, Tianjin, China | CBD stones confirmed by MRCP | LC + LCBDE vs PreERCP + LC | 110 | NA | 111 | NA | A, B, C, D, E, F |
| Sahoo et al,35 2014 | Shrirama Chandra Bhanj Medical College, Cuttack, India | CBD stones confirmed by MRCP | PreERCP + LC vs LC + IntraERCP | NA | NA | 41 | 42 | A, D |
| Lv et al,36 2016 | Beijing Friendship Hospital, Beijing, China | CBD stones confirmed by US, CT scan, or MRCP | LC + LCBDE vs . PreERCP + LC | 29 | NA | 24 | NA | A, B, C, D, E, F, H, I |
| Poh et al,37 2016 | Monash Health Hospital, Victoria, Australia | CBD stones confirmed by IOC | LC + LCBDE vs LC + IntraERCP | 52 | NA | NA | 52 | A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H |
Abbreviations: CBD, common bile duct; CT, computed tomography; EUS, endoscopic ultrasonography; IntraERCP, intraoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography; IOC, intraoperative transcystic cholangiography; LC, laparoscopic cholecystectomy; LCDBE, laparoscopic CBD exploration; MRCP, magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography; NA, not applicable; PostERCP, postoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography; PreERCP, preoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography; US, transabdominal ultrasound.
a
A indicates success rate; B, total morbidity; C, total mortality; D, acute pancreatitis ; E, biliary leak ; F, total bleeding; G, total operative time; H, total hospital stay; and I, total costs.
b
There were 150 randomized patients per arm; however, there were 17 protocol violations per arm.