Home Current issue Ahead of print Search About us Editorial board Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2016  |  Volume : 35  |  Issue : 4  |  Page : 398-402

Comparison of one-stage endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and cholecystectomy versus two-stage endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and cholecystectomy for treatment of cholelithiasis with choledocholithiasis


Department of Experimental and Clinical Surgery, Medical Research Institute, Alexandria University, Alexandria, Egypt

Correspondence Address:
Mohamed A.F. Selimah
Department of Experimental and Clinical Surgery, Medical Research Institute, 165 Al Hurreya avenue Alhadraa, Alexandria
Egypt
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/1110-1121.194741

Rights and Permissions

Introduction The optimal management of symptomatic or suspected common bile duct (CBD) stone continues to be controversial despite the fact that laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) has turned out to be the standard method for gallbladder removal and despite innovations in endoscopy and laparoscopic surgery. Aim The aim of this study was to compare the two-stage intervention [endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) under total intravenous anesthesia followed by interval LC] with the one-stage intervention (ERCP combined with LC) in terms of feasibility, safety, effectiveness, and hospital stay. Patients and methods Eighty patients admitted to the Medical Research Institute, University of Alexandria, during the interval between January 2012 and January 2013, diagnosed as having cholelithiasis with choledocholithiasis proven by laboratory and radiological investigations (abdominal ultrasonography and/or MRCP), were studied prospectively, and they were classified into two equal groups: group A, in which a two-stage procedure was performed; and group B, in which a one-stage procedure was performed. Data were recorded, including patients’ demographic, endoscopic, and operative details, success rate, postoperative complication (ERCP and LC), overall operative time, and length of hospital stay. Results The operative time was significantly lower in the two-stage group (group A). There were no statistically significant differences between both groups as regards CBD stone retrieval, morbidity rates, or the mean hospital stay. Conclusion Taking in consideration that our results showed no statistical difference between the two groups, there is still no gold standard of care for patients having chronic calcular cholecystitis and CBD stones. We prefer separating the two procedures in our routine practice.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed906    
    Printed14    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded92    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal