ERCP with EPT, followed by a subsequent laparoscopic cholecystectomy, is currently a golden standard treatment for patients with common biliary duct stones. There is, however, no consensus in the literature, what the time interval from the index procedure to the operation should be. Some authors even argue, that ERCP/EPT should be performed during the same surgery, when the gallbladder is removed (one-step approach). Results of our study show no statistical differences in the number of conversions to open surgery, duration of the operation or postoperative morbidity regardless of the time interval between cholecystectomy and ERCP/EPT. Our current practice where patients are usually operated one to three months after ERCP/EPT operated is, based on the results of our study, safe. No specific time interval that would decrease the possibility of a conversion to open cholecystectomy or the patient having postoperative complications can be proposed. There was no mortality in our groupand the rate of postoperative complications in our sample was 9,4%, which is similar to those reported (5,3-14%) by other authors. (2,9,27,30). It is an established fact, that the rate of conversion to open cholecystectomy is higher (8-55%) in patients with a complicated gallstone disease (i.e. gallstones present, previous ERCP/EPT, urgent surgery) compared to the conversion rates (3-5%) in uncomplicated cholecystectomies. (7,17,26–29) In our study the conversion rate was 14,5%, which is comparable to the reported conversion rates in the literature. We found that the timing did not affect the rate of conversion, duration of the surgery or postoperative complication. It is hypothesized that ERCP/EPT causes inflammation in the gallbladder area thus making the subsequent cholecystectomy more difficult. Hence, surgery is often delayed, allowing the area presumably to cool off. Also, the delay allows the patient to recover from initial illness. (10,16,27) Such a delay, however, causes an increased risk of biliary symptoms reoccurrence and disease progression, hence complicating the following surgery. (12,17,27) Therefore two approaches to the timing can be considered, a very early cholecystectomy, avoiding the risk of symptoms reoccurrences or a delayed operation allowing for the gallbladder area to settle. Several published studies confirm equivalency of both therapeutic strategies (10,11,16,18,27), including the results of our study. Contrary to this, there are some studies that favour either one or the other approach. Our study has limitations. First of all, it has all of the inherent biases of a retrospective study. Second, only a few patients were (N=3) operated within a very short period of time (<72h), in an interval, that many authors argue decreases the rate of conversions, postoperative morbidity and length of stay, outweighing the risk of an early surgery. (2,12,26). On the other hand, even though most of our patients were in fact operated on in a somewhat delayed fashion (median of a 56 days), in our analysis we did not find any statistical significance of such approach, positive or negative. This is not in line with a review done by Friis et al. in which authors argue that a delayed cholecystectomy increases the risk of conversion to open surgery (26). In our analysis we did not include some variables that are reported to have an effect on the patient outcome (eg. length of stay, reoccurrence of symptoms). Furthermore, there are other variables that could affect the rate of conversions (patient conditions, previous abdominal surgeries, adhesions, experience of the surgeon), duration of operation (pre-operative diagnosis, intraoperative complications, anatomical differences, surgeon experience) and the post-operative complications and were not included in the analysis. However, most of these variables were mostly not included in other studies, either. (2,7,12,27,31)