BACKGROUND: The ideal management of cholelithiasis and common bile duct stones still is controversial. Although the two-stage sequential approach remains the prevalent management, several trials have concluded that the so-called laparoendoscopic rendezvous (LERV) technique offers some advantages, such as a reduced risk of post-ERCP (endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography) pancreatitis. This study aimed to compare the single-stage LERV technique with the two-stage endoscopic sphincterotomy followed by laparoscopic cholecystectomy. METHODS: A search for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing LERV and the two-stage sequential approach was conducted. The outcomes considered were overall complications and pancreatitis. Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were searched from 1998 to July 2012. Odds ratios (ORs) were extracted and pooled using a fixed or random-effect model depending on I (2) used as a heterogeneity measure. RESULTS: Four RCTs, including a total of 430 patients, met the inclusion criteria. The incidence of overall complications was lower in the LERV group (11.2 %) than in the two-stage intervention group (18.1 %) (OR, 0.56; 95 % confidence interval [CI], 0.32-0.99; P = 0.04; I (2) = 45 %). The findings showed that LERV was associated with less clinical pancreatitis (2.4 %) than the two-stage technique (8.4 %) (OR, 0.33; 95 % CI, 0.12-0.91; P = 0.03; I (2) = 33 %). CONCLUSIONS: Despite the limitation of a small number of studies completed, the evidence of RCTs shows that LERV is superior to two-stage treatment due to a reduction in overall complications, particularly pancreatitis.
BACKGROUND: The ideal management of cholelithiasis and common bile duct stones still is controversial. Although the two-stage sequential approach remains the prevalent management, several trials have concluded that the so-called laparoendoscopic rendezvous (LERV) technique offers some advantages, such as a reduced risk of post-ERCP (endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography) pancreatitis. This study aimed to compare the single-stage LERV technique with the two-stage endoscopic sphincterotomy followed by laparoscopic cholecystectomy. METHODS: A search for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing LERV and the two-stage sequential approach was conducted. The outcomes considered were overall complications and pancreatitis. Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were searched from 1998 to July 2012. Odds ratios (ORs) were extracted and pooled using a fixed or random-effect model depending on I (2) used as a heterogeneity measure. RESULTS: Four RCTs, including a total of 430 patients, met the inclusion criteria. The incidence of overall complications was lower in the LERV group (11.2 %) than in the two-stage intervention group (18.1 %) (OR, 0.56; 95 % confidence interval [CI], 0.32-0.99; P = 0.04; I (2) = 45 %). The findings showed that LERV was associated with less clinical pancreatitis (2.4 %) than the two-stage technique (8.4 %) (OR, 0.33; 95 % CI, 0.12-0.91; P = 0.03; I (2) = 33 %). CONCLUSIONS: Despite the limitation of a small number of studies completed, the evidence of RCTs shows that LERV is superior to two-stage treatment due to a reduction in overall complications, particularly pancreatitis.
Authors: G Saccomani; V Durante; M R Magnolia; L Ghezzo; R Lombezzi; L Esercizio; M Stella; A Arezzo Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2005-05-03 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: L R Rábago; C Vicente; F Soler; M Delgado; I Moral; I Guerra; J L Castro; E Quintanilla; J Romeo; R Llorente; J Vázquez Echarri; J L Martínez-Veiga; F Gea Journal: Endoscopy Date: 2006-08 Impact factor: 10.093
Authors: S Vaccari; M Minghetti; A Lauro; M I Bellini; A Ussia; S Khouzam; I R Marino; M Cervellera; V D'Andrea; V Tonini Journal: Dig Dis Sci Date: 2022-03-22 Impact factor: 3.199