Evidence Hub

Comparison of Efficacy and Safety of Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography in Choledocholithiasis Patients at Different Age Groups: A Meta-Analysis

Bo Wang, Jie Cheng

The Turkish Journal of Gastroenterology, 2025

4 citations

Abstract

Background/Aims: Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is often recommended as the first choice for the treatment of choledocholithiasis in the elderly. This study aims to investigate the efficiency and safety of ERCP in choledocholithiasis patients of different age groups. Materials and Methods: Study searching was performed in the PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases from the inception to August 2024. The outcomes were complete stone clearance, mortality, overall complications, pancreatitis, perforation, biliary infection, bleeding, and pneumonia. Choledocholithiasis patients were divided into young (<65 years), general old (65 years ≤ age <80 years or 65 years ≤ age <90 years), and extremely old (≥80 years or ≥90 years) groups. Results: Finally, 10 eligible studies were included for analysis. Compared to extremely old patients (≥90 years), the complete stone clearance was higher [odds ratio (OR) = 7.60, 95% CI: 1.89-30.57] and pneumonia was lower (OR = 0.16, 95% CI: 0.06-0.41) in general old patients (65 years ≤ age <90 years). Young (<65 years) patients had lower odds of mortality when compared to the age ≥65 years group (OR = 0.21, 95% CI: 0.17-0.27) and the age ≥80 years group (OR = 0.19, 95% CI: 0.15-0.24). In the comparison of 65-80 years versus ≥80 years, lower mortality (OR = 0.80, 95% CI: 0.65-0.98) was observed in the group of age range 65-80 years. Conclusion: Our findings suggested that extremely old patients with…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free