Copyright
©2012 Baishideng Publishing Group Co.
World J Gastroenterol. Jun 28, 2012; 18(24): 3156-3166
Published online Jun 28, 2012. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v18.i24.3156
Published online Jun 28, 2012. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v18.i24.3156
Figure 3 Forest plot of meta-analysis.
A: Two-stage [endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP)/endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) + laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC)] vs single-stage [LC + laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE)] in stone clearance from the common bile duct; B: Two-stage (ERCP/EST + LC) vs single-stage (LC + LCBDE) in postoperative morbidity; C: Two-stage (ERCP/EST + LC) vs single-stage (LC + LCBDE) in mortality; D: Two-stage (ERCP/EST + LC) vs single-stage (LC + LCBDE) in conversion to other procedures; E: Two-stage (ERCP/EST + LC) vs single-stage (LC + LCBDE) in length of hospital stay; F: Two-stage (ERCP/EST + LC) vs single-stage (LC + LCBDE) in total operating time. CI: Confidence interval.
-
Citation: Lu J, Cheng Y, Xiong XZ, Lin YX, Wu SJ, Cheng NS. Two-stage
vs single-stage management for concomitant gallstones and common bile duct stones. World J Gastroenterol 2012; 18(24): 3156-3166 - URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1007-9327/full/v18/i24/3156.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v18.i24.3156