↓ Skip to main content

Laparoscopic-endoscopic rendezvous versus preoperative endoscopic sphincterotomy in people undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy for stones in the gallbladder and bile duct

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
52 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Laparoscopic-endoscopic rendezvous versus preoperative endoscopic sphincterotomy in people undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy for stones in the gallbladder and bile duct
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2018
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd010507.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nereo Vettoretto, Alberto Arezzo, Federico Famiglietti, Roberto Cirocchi, Lorenzo Moja, Mario Morino

Abstract

The management of gallbladder stones (lithiasis) concomitant with bile duct stones is controversial. The more frequent approach is a two-stage procedure, with endoscopic sphincterotomy and stone removal from the bile duct followed by laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The laparoscopic-endoscopic rendezvous combines the two techniques in a single-stage operation. To compare the benefits and harms of endoscopic sphincterotomy and stone removal followed by laparoscopic cholecystectomy (the single-stage rendezvous technique) versus preoperative endoscopic sphincterotomy followed by laparoscopic cholecystectomy (two stages) in people with gallbladder and common bile duct stones. We searched The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE Ovid, Embase Ovid, Science Citation Index Expanded Web of Science, and two trials registers (February 2017). We included randomised clinical trials that enrolled people with concomitant gallbladder and common bile duct stones, regardless of clinical status or diagnostic work-up, and compared laparoscopic-endoscopic rendezvous versus preoperative endoscopic sphincterotomy procedures in people undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy. We excluded other endoscopic or surgical methods of intraoperative clearance of the bile duct, e.g. non-aided intraoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography or laparoscopic choledocholithotomy (surgical incision of the common bile duct for removal of bile duct stones). We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. We included five randomised clinical trials with 517 participants (257 underwent a laparoscopic-endoscopic rendezvous technique versus 260 underwent a sequential approach), which fulfilled our inclusion criteria and provided data for analysis. Trial participants were scheduled for laparoscopic cholecystectomy because of suspected cholecysto-choledocholithiasis. Male/female ratio was 0.7; age of men and women ranged from 21 years to 87 years. The run-in and follow-up periods of the trials ranged from 32 months to 84 months. Overall, the five trials were judged at high risk of bias. Athough all trials measured mortality, there was just one death reported in one trial, in the laparoscopic-endoscopic rendezvous group (low-quality evidence). The overall morbidity (surgical morbidity plus general morbidity) may be lower with laparoscopic rendezvous (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.20; participants = 434, trials = 4; I² = 28%; low-quality evidence); the effect was a little more certain when a fixed-effect model was used (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.99). There was insufficient evidence to determine the effects of the two approaches on the failure of primary clearance of the bile duct (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.38; participants = 517; trials = 5; I² = 58%; very low-quality evidence). The effects of either approach on clinical post-operative pancreatitis were unclear (RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.07 to 1.12; participants = 517, trials = 5; I² = 24%; low-quality evidence). Hospital stay appeared to be lower in the laparoscopic-endoscopic rendezvous group by about three days (95% CI 3.51 to 2.50 days shorter; 515 participants in five trials; low-quality evidence). There was very low-quality evidence that suggested longer operative time with laparoscopic-endoscopic rendezvous (MD 34.07 minutes, 95% CI 11.41 to 56.74; participants = 313; trials = 3; I² = 93%). The Trial Sequential Analyses of operating time and the length of hospital stay indicated that all the trials crossed the conventional boundaries, suggesting that the sample sizes were adequate, with a low risk of random error. There was insufficient evidence to determine the effects of the laparoscopic-endoscopic rendezvous versus preoperative endoscopic sphincterotomy techniques in people undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy on mortality and morbidity. The laparoscopic-endoscopic rendezvous procedure may lead to longer operating times, but it may reduce the length of the hospital stay when compared with preoperative endoscopic sphincterotomy followed by laparoscopic cholecystectomy. However, no firm conclusions could be drawn because the quality of evidence was low or very low. If confirmed by future trials, these data might re-design the scenario of treatment of this condition, albeit requiring greater organisational effort. Future trials should also address issues such as quality of life and cost analysis.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 52 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 52 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 19%
Student > Bachelor 8 15%
Student > Master 7 13%
Other 6 12%
Unspecified 5 10%
Other 16 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 27 52%
Unspecified 12 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 10%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 4%
Chemistry 2 4%
Other 4 8%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 April 2018.
All research outputs
#9,810,292
of 12,799,521 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#9,304
of 10,428 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#191,874
of 274,399 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#177
of 195 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,799,521 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,428 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.4. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 274,399 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 195 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.