Can a small endoscopic sphincterotomy plus a large-balloon dilation reduce the use of mechanical lithotripsy in patients with large bile duct stones?

Comparison of 12- and 15-mm endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation combined with a limited endoscopic sphincterotomy for large bile duct stones: A propensity score-matched analysis

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

Endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation (EPLBD) combined with endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) has been increasingly used to remove large common bile duct (CBD) stones. However, the clinical outcomes of stone extraction have rarely been investigated in regard to the size of the balloon. The aim of this study was to assess the short- and long-term outcomes of 12- and 15-mm EPLBD with a limited EST for large CBD stones.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients without prior endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) who received 12- or 15-mm EPLBD in combination with a limited EST for large CBD stones at our center between January 2013 and December 2020 were recruited. Matched pairs with 12- and 15-mm EPLBD were generated.

RESULTS

A total of 161 patients were included, with 50 patients successfully matched in each group. The total procedure time (36.8 min vs. 47.3 min, p = 0.003) and the tone removal time (30.5 min vs. 39.2 min, p = 0.008) were significantly lower in the matched 15-mm EPLBD group, while the initial and overall stone removal success rates were comparable between the two groups (p > 0.05). The matched 15-mm EPLBD group had a lower incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) compared to the matched 12-mm EPLBD group (2.0 % vs. 16.0 %, p = 0.031). The cumulative long-term biliary complications were not statistically different between the two groups (log-rank test p = 0.612).

CONCLUSION

15-mm EPLBD combined with a limited EST shortened the procedure time and reduced the incidence of PEP without increasing long-term biliary complications compared to 12-mm EPLBD combined with a limited EST.

Endoscopic Papillary Large Balloon Dilatation With or Without Endoscopic Sphincterotomy in the Treatment of Common Bile Duct Stones

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation (EPLBD) has been proved to have better efficacy and safety in removing common bile duct stones. Conventional endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) is usually performed before EPLBD. However, EPLBD without EST has recently reported short-term outcomes similar to those of EPLBD with EST. This article summarizes the latest research advances in EPLBD with or without EST for the treatment of large common bile duct stones (CBDS) as a way to provide further evidence to support the ERCP surgeon's choice of which technique to use for the treatment of large CBDS.

FINDINGS

EPLBD alone is recommended in cases of anatomical abnormalities or bleeding tendencies. EPLBD with EST is recommended in patients with stenosis of the duodenal papilla or distal common bile duct or with periportal diverticula. Most clinical studies have shown that the clinical efficacy and incidence of adverse events associated with ESLBD are comparable to those of standalone EPLBD. However, further large-scale prospective randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm these findings.

Comparative efficacy and safety of 3 endoscopic techniques for the treatment of large common bile duct stones (≥15 mm): long-term follow-up

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The effectiveness of endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation (EPLBD) alone versus EPLBD combined with endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) in treating large common bile duct stones (CBDSs; ≥15 mm) remains unclear. This study aimed to evaluate the safety and treatment outcomes of EPLBD combined with limited or large EST versus EPLBD alone in removing large CBDSs.

METHODS

Between January 2013 and September 2024, total of 408 patients underwent EPLBD, either alone or in combination with EST, to treat large CBDSs (≥15 mm). Patients were divided into 3 groups: EPLBD alone (n = 92), EPLBD with limited EST (n = 124), and EPLBD with large EST (n = 192). The study compared the first-session stone clearance rate, overall stone success rate, mechanical lithotripsy use, and adverse event rate.

RESULTS

Compared with the EPLBD alone group, the EPLBD with limited EST and the EPLBD with large EST groups exhibited higher initial stone clearance rates, required fewer endoscopic procedures for complete stone removal, and had lower rates of mechanical lithotripsy use and CBDS recurrence. Compared with the EPLBD with limited EST group, the EPLBD with large EST group showed a higher initial stone clearance rate, fewer endoscopic procedures required for complete CBDS removal, and no significant differences in adverse events. The multivariate analysis showed that the endoscopic technique and number of endoscopic operations were strongly associated with CBDS recurrence.

CONCLUSIONS

EPLBD combined with large EST may represent a more rational endoscopic technique for treating large CBDSs.

History of the Interventional Pancreaticobiliary Endoscopy

With the introduction of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and linear endoscopic ultrasound, interventional pancreaticobiliary (PB) endoscopy has had an enormous impact in the management of pancreatic and biliary diseases. Continuous efforts to improve various devices and techniques have revolutionized these treatment modalities as viable alternatives to surgery. In recent years, trends toward combining endoscopic techniques with other modalities, such as laparoscopic and radiological interventions, for complex PB diseases have emerged using a multidisciplinary approach. Ongoing research and clinical experience will lead to refinements in interventional PB endoscopic techniques and subsequently improve outcomes and reduce complication rates.

ERCP findings provide further justification for a "surgery-first" mindset in choledocholithiasis

INTRODUCTION

Choledocholithiasis is most often managed in a two-procedure pathway including endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) followed by laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). In contrast, a single-stage, surgery-first approach consisting of LC, cholangiogram, and laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) is associated with reduced hospital stays and equivalent morbidity. Despite this, nationwide referral patterns heavily favor ERCP, obscuring those undergoing ERCP with obstructions amenable to simple intraoperative interventions. We hypothesized that most patients had endoscopic findings consistent with simple sludge or small-to-medium stones, which could have been cleared by basic LCBDE maneuvers.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed 294 patients > 18 years old who underwent preoperative ERCP for the management of suspected choledocholithiasis. Exclusion criteria included: failed ERCP, cholangitis, prior cholecystectomy, patient refusal of surgery, or medical conditions precluding surgical candidacy. Stone size was categorized as small (0-4 mm), medium (5-7 mm), and large (≥ 8 mm).

RESULTS

At the time of ERCP, 37 (20.1%) patients had sludge only, 96 (52.2%) had stones only, 42 (22.8%) had sludge and stones, and 9 (4.8%) had no stones. Of the 138 patients with any stones, 37 (26.8%) had small stones, 41 (29.7%) medium, 43 (31.2%) large, and 17 (12.3%) had uncharacterizable stones. Overall, 74.3% of patients had findings of sludge, stones (0-7 mm), or negative ERCP.

CONCLUSION

The majority of patients who underwent preoperative ERCP for suspected choledocholithiasis had findings that are amenable to simple intraoperative interventions. In fact, over a quarter of the patients had a negative ERCP, sludge, or small stones which would likely be cleared by flushing/glucagon precluding any further instrumentation. While large stones may require more advanced techniques, this represents a small percentage of patients. Surgery-first management for suspected choledocholithiasis can offer an efficient alternative for the majority of patients.

Bile Duct Stone Size May Influence the Efficacy of Endoscopic Sphincterotomy With or Without Large-Balloon Dilation: A Meta-Analysis

Purpose: Endoscopic sphincterotomy (EPT) combined with endoscopic papillary large balloon dilatation (EPBD) are used to remove large common bile duct (CBD) stones. This meta-analysis compared the efficacy and safety of EPT+EPBD versus EPT alone in the removal of stones based on stone size. Materials and Methods: Twenty-two studies (11 randomized control trials [RCTs] and 11 non-RCTs) were identified and reviewed based on searches of Embase, PubMed, and Web of Science. CBD stone's size was measured with reference to diameter of the duodenoscope (13 mm) and size of the large dilatation balloon (17 mm) seen on cholangiogram. The stone clearance rate, required mechanical lithotripsy (ML), procedure time, and pancreatitis were compared according to the mean stone size, and further divided into Groups A (small) 10-13 mm, B (medium) 13-17 mm, and C (large) >17 mm. Results: Subgroup analysis according to CBD stone size showed EPT + EPBD had a significantly better initial stone clearance rate than EPT in Groups B (odds ratio [OR] = 2.39, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.20-4.77) and C (OR = 3.05, 95% CI: 1.86-5.03), but not for Group A (OR = 1.41, 95% CI: 0.90-2.21). EPT+EPBD also required significantly less ML than EPT in Groups B (OR = 0.34, 95% CI: 0.15-0.77) and C (OR = 0.31, 95% CI: 0.13-0.73). EPT+EPBD had significantly shorter procedure time than EPT in Group B (standardized mean difference = -1.20, 95% CI: -2.08 to 0.32). In meta-regression analysis, Group B had a better OR in initial stone clearance rate and less ML usage rate correlation with the size of CBD stone, but not for Group C with larger stones. Conclusions: EPT+EPBD had a significantly better initial stone clearance rate, and required less ML with shorter procedure time than EPT for removing medium-sized CBD stones, but the efficacy was limited to large CBD stones. The study protocol and trial registration had been registered in PROSPERO (Registration No. CRD42020171689).

Comparison of Different Endoscopic Methods Used for Managing Choledocholithiasis in Patients with End-Stage Renal Disease Undergoing Hemodialysis

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST), endoscopic papillary balloon dilation (EPBD), and endoscopic sphincterotomy plus balloon dilation (ESBD) are all techniques used to manage choledocholithiasis. We aim to analyze the efficacy and safety of these techniques for treating choledocholithiasis in patients undergoing hemodialysis (HD).

METHODS

We performed a retrospective study of 80 patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) on HD who underwent endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) for choledocholithiasis management between August 1st, 2012, and December 31st, 2020, at a medical center in southern Taiwan. These patients were divided into three groups: EST (n = 21), EPBD (n = 28), and ESBD (n = 31). Post-ERCP complications, including pancreatitis, bleeding, cholangitis, and perforation, were reviewed for analysis.

RESULTS

There were no significant among-group differences in the rate of complete stone clearance and hospitalization day after ERCP. Patients in the EST group had a higher post-ERCP complication rate than was the case in the other groups (p = 0.016). ESBD significantly reduced post-ERCP bleeding, compared with that occurring with EST (OR 0.07; 95% CI, 0.01-0.72, p = 0.026). There were no significant among-group differences in the rates of pancreatitis and cholangitis. There were no ERCP-related perforations or deaths in this study.

CONCLUSIONS

EST, EPBD, and ESBD are efficient methods for treating choledocholithiasis in ESRD patients. ESBD was found to lead to a lower risk of bleeding than EST, and the rate of pancreatitis or cholangitis was comparable for EST and EPBD. Our results suggest that ESBD is the best choice of treatment of choledocholithiasis in patients with ESRD undergoing HD.

Analysis of Clinical Effects of Intubation and Sphincterotomy With Wire-guided Incision Knife Plus Balloon Dilatation in the Treatment of Choledocholithiasis: A Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

To investigate the clinical effects of intubation and sphincterotomy with wire-guided incision knife plus balloon dilatation (ISBD) in the treatment of choledocholithiasis, a randomized controlled trial was conducted.

METHODS

A total of 270 patients with choledocholithiasis confirmed by computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging from January 2016 to July 2018 in our hospital were enrolled in the research. All patients were randomly divided into 3 groups: ISBD group, endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) group, and endoscopic sphincterotomy plus balloon dilation group, respectively. The clinical effects, complications, and inflammation indexes of the 3 groups were detected. SPSS software was used for statistics and analysis of results.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in basic characteristics of the 3 groups. Although there was no significant difference in the total stone clearance rate among the 3 groups, the first stone clearance rate and the large stone clearance rate in ISBD group were significantly higher than those in EST group. Compared with the other 2 groups, the total operation time and complications in ISBD group were significant lower. The serum levels of interleukin-6, C-reactive protein (CRP), procalcitonin (PCT), carbohydrate antigen 19-9, and carcinoembryonic antigen in ISBD group were significant lower than those in EST group, and CRP and PCT in ISBD group were markedly lower than those in endoscopic sphincterotomy plus balloon dilation group.

CONCLUSIONS

ISBD treatment simplifies the operation procedure, shortens the operation time, reduces postoperative inflammation and complications, and makes ERCP stone removal simpler, safer, and more efficient for patients with common bile duct stones.

Efficacy of endoscopic large balloon dilation extended for 2 minutes in bile duct stone removal: A multicenter retrospective study

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE

There is no evidence regarding the optimal balloon dilation time during endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation (EPLBD). The study aim was to evaluate the efficacy of 2-minute extended balloon dilation for EPLBD.

METHODS

Two hundred and five patients who underwent EPLBD during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) for bile duct stones at three tertiary centers were included in the analysis. Clinical outcomes and the adverse events were compared between the 0-minute group (n = 94, balloon deflated immediately after waist disappearance) and the 2-minute group (n = 111, balloon dilation maintained for 2 minutes after waist disappearance). The risk factors of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) after EPLBD were assessed.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in the stone removal rates and hospitalization periods between the two groups. However, the total ERCP procedure time was significantly shorter in the 2-minute group (40.6 vs 48.9 min, P = .03). The incidence of PEP was 7.4% in the 0-minute group and significantly lower at 0.9% in the 2-minute group (P = .04). Multivariate analysis identified without 2-minute extended EPLBD as a significant risk factor of PEP (OR: 9.9, P = .045).

CONCLUSIONS

Extension of EPLBD for 2 minutes helped prevent PEP and shortened the procedure time.

Dilation assisted stone extraction for complex biliary lithiasis: Technical aspects and practical principles

Common bile duct stones are frequently diagnosed worldwide and are one of the main indications for endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography. Endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) has been used for the removal of bile duct stones for the past 40 years, providing a wide opening to allow extraction. Up to 15% of patients present with complicated choledocholithiasis. In this context, additional therapeutic approaches have been proposed such as endoscopic mechanical lithotripsy, intraductal or extracorporeal lithotripsy, or endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation (EPLBD). EPLBD combined with EST was introduced in 2003 to facilitate the passage of large or multiple bile duct stones using a balloon greater than 12 mm in diameter. EPLBD without EST was introduced as a simplified technique in 2009. Dilation-assisted stone extraction (DASE) is the combination of two techniques: EPLBD and sub-maximal EST. Several studies have reported this technique as safe and effective in patients with large bile duct stones, without any increased risk of adverse events such as pancreatitis, bleeding, or perforation. Nevertheless, it is difficult to analyze the outcomes of DASE because there are no standard techniques and definitions between studies. The purpose of this paper is to provide technical guidance and specific information about the main issues regarding DASE, based on current literature and daily clinical experience in biliary referral centers.

Best Procedure for the Management of Common Bile Duct Stones via the Papilla: Literature Review and Analysis of Procedural Efficacy and Safety

Background: Endoscopic management of common bile duct stones (CBDS) is standard; however, various techniques are performed via the papilla, and the best procedure in terms of both efficacy and safety has not been determined. Methods: Endoscopic procedures were classified into five categories according to endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) and balloon dilation (BD): (1) EST, (2) endoscopic papillary BD (≤10 mm) (EPBD), (3) EST followed by BD (≤10 mm) (ESBD), (4) endoscopic papillary large BD (≥12 mm) (EPLBD), and (5) EST followed by large BD (≥12 mm) (ESLBD). We performed a literature review of prospective and retrospective studies to compare efficacy and adverse events (AEs). Each procedure was associated with different efficacy and AE profiles. Results: In total, 19 prospective and seven retrospective studies with a total of 3930 patients were included in this study. For EST, the complete stone removal rate at the first session, rate of mechanical lithotripsy (ML), and rate of overall AEs in EST were superior to EPBD, but a higher rate of bleeding was found for EST. Based on one retrospective study, complete stone removal rate at the first session, rate of ML, and rate of overall AEs were superior for ESBD vs. EST, and the rate of bleeding for the former was also lower. Complete stone removal rate at the first session and rate of ML for ESLBD were superior to those for EST, with no significant difference in rate of AEs. For EST vs. EPLBD, complete stone removal rate at the first session and rate of ML were superior for the latter. For EPLBD vs. ESLBD, the efficacy and safety were similar. Conclusions: ESBD is considered the best procedure for the management of small CBDS, but strong evidence is lacking. For large CBDS, both ESLBD and EPLBD are similar.

The efficacy of limited endoscopic sphincterotomy plus endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation for removal of large bile duct stones

BACKGROUND

The removal of large bile duct stones (> 15 mm) by conventional endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) and endoscopic papillary balloon dilation (EPBD) can be challenging, requiring mechanical lithotripsy (ML) in addition to EST or EPBD. The primary complication of ML is basket and stone impaction, which can lead to complications such as pancreatitis and cholangitis. The present study aims to investigate the efficacy of limited EST plus endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation (EST-EPLBD) for large bile duct stone extraction with an extent of cutting < 1/2 the length of the papillary mound.

METHODS

We enrolled 185 patients with ≥15 mm bile duct stones who received EST, EPLBD and limited EST-EPLBD treatment from January 1, 2010 to February 28, 2018, at Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital (Kaohsiung, Taiwan). All patients were categorized into three groups: EST group (n = 31), EPLBD group (n = 96), and limited EST-EPLBD group (n = 58). The primary outcome variables were the success rate of complete stone removal and complications.

RESULTS

The limited EST-EPLBD group exhibited a higher success rate of the first-session treatment compared with the EST and EPLBD groups (98.3% vs. 83.9% vs. 86.5%; P = 0.032) but required a longer procedure time (32 (12-61) min vs. 23.5 (17-68) min vs. 25.0 (14-60) min; P = 0.001). The need for ML during the procedure was 4 (12.9%) in the EST group, 10 (10.4%) in the EPLBD group and 2 (3.4%) in the limited EST-EPLBD group. Post-procedure bleeding in the EST group was more common than that in the limited EST-EPLBD group (9.7% vs. 0%; P = 0.038). Furthermore, dilated bile duct was the only risk factor for bile duct stone recurrence in the limited EST-EPLBD group.

CONCLUSIONS

Limited EST-EPLBD exhibits a higher success rate but requires marginally longer procedure time for the first-session treatment. Furthermore, dilated bile duct is the only risk factor for bile duct stone recurrence in patients undergoing limited EST-EPLBD.

Endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation and endoscopic papillary balloon dilation both without sphincterotomy for removal of large bile duct stones: A propensity-matched analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation (EPLBD) without endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) may facilitate extraction of large bile duct stones through achieving adequate dilation of the ampulla. However, contrary to favorable long-term outcomes after endoscopic papillary balloon dilation (EPBD), that of EPLBD without EST has been little investigated. Therefore, we conducted the current study to evaluate short- and long-term outcomes of EPLBD without EST and EPBD after removal of large bile duct stones (LBDS; ≥10 mm).

METHODS

This retrospective study included patients without a previous history of EST, EPBD or EPLBD who underwent EPLBD without EST or EPBD for removal of LBDS. Each patient in the EPLBD without EST group was matched to a patient in the EPBD group using propensity scores.

RESULTS

Forty-four patients in each group were matched for the analysis. Baseline characteristics were balanced after propensity matching. Rate of complete stone removal in a single session was higher (80% vs 16%, P < 0.001), number of ERCP sessions (1.3 ± 0.7 vs 2.4 ± 1.5, P < 0.001) and rate of lithotripsy use (30% vs 80%, P < 0.001) were smaller in the matched EPLBD without EST group. Contrary to null between-group differences in early adverse events (P = 0.99), a cumulative rate of late biliary complications was higher in the EPLBD without EST group (P = 0.02).

CONCLUSION

EPLBD without EST showed higher efficacy for removal of LBDS but was associated with worse long-term outcomes when compared to EPBD.

Comparison between endoscopic sphincterotomy vs endoscopic sphincterotomy associated with balloon dilation for removal of bile duct stones: A systematic review and meta-analysis based on randomized controlled trials

AIM

To compare gallstones removal rate and incidence of bleeding, pancreatitis, use of mechanical lithotripsy, cholangitis and perforation between isolated sphincterotomy vs sphincterotomy associated with balloon dilation of papilla in choledocholithiasis through the meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review according to the PRISMA guidelines. Literature search was restricted to randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on MedLine, Cochrane Library, LILACS, and EMBASE database platforms in July 2017. The manual search included references of retrieved articles. We extracted data focusing on outcomes: The primary endpoint was the stones removal rate; Secondary endpoints were rates of pancreatitis, bleeding, use of mechanical lithotripsy (ML), perforation and cholangitis.

RESULTS

Eleven RCTs with 1824 patients were included. EST was associated with more post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) bleeding [FE RD-0.02, CI (-0.03, -0.00), I2 = 33%, P = 0.05] and more need of mechanical lithotripsy in general [RE RD-0.16, CI (-0.25, -0.06), I2 = 90%, P = 0.002] and in subgroup analysis of stones greater than 15 mm [RE RD-0.20, CI (-0.38, -0.02), I2 = 82%, P = 0.003]. Incidence of pancreatitis [FE RD-0.01, CI (-0.03, 0.01), I2 = 0, P = 0.36], cholangitis [FE RD-0.00, CI (-0.01, 0.01), I2 =0, P = 0.97] and perforation [FE RD-0.01, CI (-0.01, 0.00), I2 = 0, P = 0.23] was similar between the groups as well as similar stone removal rates in general [FE RD-0.01, CI (-0.01, 0.04), I2 = 0, P = 0.23] and pooled analysis of stones greater than 15 mm [FE RD-0.02, CI (-0.02, 0.07), I2 = 11%, P = 0.31].

CONCLUSION

Through meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials we found that isolated sphincterotomy was associated with more post-ERCP bleeding and more need for mechanical lithotripsy. However, there was no statistical difference in the stone removal rate between isolated sphincterotomy and sphincterotomy associated with balloon dilation in the approach to remove gallstones.

Comparison of the Long-Term Outcomes of Endoscopic Papillary Large Balloon Dilation Alone versus Endoscopic Sphincterotomy for Removal of Bile Duct Stones

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation (EPLBD) alone is an alternative to endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) for treatment of common bile duct (CBD) stones. However, limited data exists regarding comparison of the long-term outcomes for these techniques. In this study, we compared the long-term outcomes after EST with those after EPLBD alone for removal of CBD stones.

METHODS

The records of patients with EST or EPLBD alone referred for CBD stones retrieval between June 2008 and July 2015 were retrospectively reviewed. Complete stone clearance, ERCP-related adverse events, and late biliary complications during long-term follow-up were analyzed.

RESULTS

Basic patient characteristics were similar between the groups that underwent EST (n = 60) and EPLBD alone (n = 161). EPLBD compared with EST resulted in similar outcomes in terms of complete stone clearance (99.4% versus 100%, P = 0.54) and ERCP-related adverse events (6.8% versus 6.7%, P = 1.00). The mean duration of the follow-up was 74.5 months and 71.6 months who underwent EST and EPLBD alone, respectively (P = 0.42). Late biliary complications were occurred frequently in the EST group than in the EPLBD alone group (11 [18.6%] versus 16 [10.2%]), although the difference did not reach statistical significance (P = 0.11). Multivariate analysis showed that mechanical lithotripsy ([OR], 2.815; 95% CI, 1.148-6.902; P = 0.024) was significantly associated with late biliary complications.

CONCLUSION

As an alternative to EST, EPLBD has similar efficacy and safety for managing CBD stones. During long-term follow-up, patients who underwent EPLBD alone may have fewer late biliary complications compared with those after EST. In addition, mechanical lithotripsy may be an independent risk factor for late biliary complications.

Comparison of late adverse events after endoscopic sphincterotomy versus endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation for common bile duct stones: A propensity score-based cohort analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Endoscopic sphincterotomy (ES) is a standard procedure for the treatment of common bile duct stones (CBDS). Endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation (EPLBD) is emerging as an effective method to treat difficult CBDS, providing several advantages over ES without increasing early adverse events (AE). However, the late AE of EPLBD have not yet been well studied. The aim of the present study was to compare late AE after EPLBD versus ES for the treatment of CBDS using a propensity score-based cohort analysis.

METHODS

Propensity score matching was introduced to reduce the possible bias in baseline characteristics between two treatment groups and formed the matched cohort including 240 patients. Primary endpoint was cumulative as well as estimated 1-year and 3-year late AE rates. Secondary outcome was the incidence of early AE.

RESULTS

Cumulative late AE rates were 12.5% and 16.7% in the ELPBD and ES groups (P = 0.936) with a median follow-up period of 915.5 and 1544.5 days, respectively. Estimated 1-year and 3-year late AE rates were 8.4% and 13.1% in the EPLBD group and 5.0% and 15.0% in the ES group, respectively. In multivariate analysis, ≥two procedures were identified as independent risk factors for late AE. Overall early AE rate did not differ between the groups.

CONCLUSION

In the present study, late AE rate after EPLBD showed no significant difference compared with that after ES, which had a relatively long follow-up period. Therefore, EPLBD could be used for the treatment of CBDS, if CBDS are considered difficult to treat. Clinical Trial Registry: UMIN000027798.

Endoscopic papillary large balloon dilatation with sphincterotomy is safe and effective for biliary stone removal independent of timing and size of sphincterotomy

AIM

To describe the efficacy and safety of endoscopic papillary large balloon dilatation (EPLBD) in the management of bile duct stones in a Western population.

METHODS

Data was collected from the endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and Radiology electronic database along with a review of case notes over a period of six years from 1^st August 2009 to 31^st July 2015 and incorporated into Microsoft excel. Statistical analyses were performed using MedCalc for Windows, version 12.5 (MedCalc Software, Ostend, Belgium). Simple statistical applications were applied in order to determine whether significant differences exist in comparison groups. We initially used simple proportions to describe the study populations. Furthermore, we used chi-square test to compare proportions and categorical variables. Non-parametric Mann-Whitney U-test was applied in order to compare continuous variables. All comparisons were deemed to be statistically significant if P values were less than 0.05.

RESULTS

EPLBD was performed in 229 patients (46 females) with mean age of 68 ± 14.3 years. 115/229 (50%) patients had failed duct clearance at previous ERCP referred from elsewhere with standard techniques. Duct clearance at the Index* ERCP (1^st ERCP at our centre) was 72.5%. Final duct clearance rate was 98%. EPLBD after fresh sphincterotomy was performed in 81 (35.4%). Median balloon size was 13.5 mm (10 - 18). In addition to EPLBD, per-oral cholangioscopy (POC) and electrohydraulic lithotripsy (EHL) was performed in 35 (15%) patients at index* ERCP. 63 (27.5%) required repeat ERCP for stone clearance. 28 (44.5%) required POC and EHL and 11 (17.4%) had repeat EPLBD for complete duct clearance. Larger stone size (12.4 mm vs 17.4 mm, P < 0.000001), multiple stones (2, range (1-13) vs 3, range (1-12), P < 0.006) and dilated common bile duct (CBD) (12.4 mm vs 18.3 mm, P < 0.001) were significant predictors of failed duct clearance at index ERCP. 47 patients (20%) had ampullary or peri-ampullary diverticula. Procedure related adverse events included 2 cases of bleeding and pancreatitis (0.87%) each.

CONCLUSION

EPLBD is a safe and effective technique for CBDS removal. There is no difference in outcomes whether it is performed at the time of sphincterotomy or at a later procedure or whether there is a full or limited sphincterotomy.

What Is the Value of the Learning Curve in Endoscopic Balloon Dilatation of the Major Papilla?

Introduction

Endoscopic papillary large balloon dilatation (EPLBD) is an alternative for the treatment of common bile duct (CBD) stones. Existing evidence of factors associated with its outcomes is contradictory.

Objective

To identify predictors (including the experience of an endoscopist) of success and adverse events in EPLBD.

Methods

We reviewed the first 200 EPLBD with endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) performed at our center. Demographic, clinical, and anatomic variables were studied, as well as the performance characteristics, correlating them with individual and group experience.

Results

Global success was obtained in 87% of cases, and adverse events occurred in 16% of cases. Success was associated with stone size, CBD diameter, and the need to perform mechanical lithotripsy (ML). Despite that adverse events were not univariately associated with any factor, severe adverse events were more likely to occur in stones > 13.5 mm. Multivariate analysis which disclosed success was higher when ML was not required and stones were < 13.5 mm. It also showed that no factor was associated with adverse events or their severity. No differences were found on success or adverse events that could be directly related to experience.

Conclusions

Success of EPLBD-EST is higher in stones < 13.5 mm and when ML is not required. Experience does not appear to play a major role.

Minor endoscopic sphincterotomy followed by large balloon dilation for large choledocholith treatment

AIM

To evaluate early and late outcomes of endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation (EPLBD) with minor endoscopic sphincterotomy (mEST) for stone removal.

METHODS

A total of 149 consecutive patients with difficult common bile duct (CBD) stones (diameter ≥ 10 mm or ≥ 3 stones) underwent conventional endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) or mEST plus EPLBD from May 2012 to April 2016. Their demographic, laboratory and procedural data were collected, and pancreaticobiliary complications were recorded.

RESULTS

Sixty-nine (94.5%) of the patients in the EPLBD + mEST group and 64 (84.2%) in the conventional EST group achieved stone clearance following the first session (P = 0.0421). The procedure time for EPLBD + mEST was shorter than for EST alone (42.1 ± 13.6 min vs 47.3 ± 11.8 min, P = 0.0128). The overall rate of early complications in the EPLBD + mEST group (11%) was lower than in the EST group (21.1%); however, the difference was not significant (P = 0.0938). The cumulative recurrence rate of cholangitis and CBD stones between the two groups was also similar. The procedure time was independently associated with post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis (OR = 6.374, 95%CI: 1.193-22.624, P = 0.023), CBD stone diameter ≥ 16 mm (OR = 7.463, 95%CI: 2.705-21.246, P = 0.0452) and use of mechanical lithotripsy (OR = 9.913, 95%CI: 3.446-23.154, P = 0.0133) were independent risk factors for stone recurrence.

CONCLUSION

EPLBD with mEST is more effective than EST alone for difficult CBD stone removal, with shorter procedure time and fewer early complications.

Efficacy and safety of endoscopic papillary balloon dilation for the removal of bile duct stones: Data from a "real-life" multicenter study on Dilation-Assisted Stone Extraction

AIM

To report data on Dilation-Assisted Stone Extraction (DASE) use in clinical practice and its efficacy and safety trough three Italian referral centers for biliopancreatic diseases treatment.

METHODS

From January 2011 to December 2015 we collected data on 120 patients treated with DASE. Technical success was obtained when the endoscopist was able to place the balloon trough the papilla inflating the balloon until the final diameter for an adequate time (at least 30 s). Clinical success was obtained after complete stone removal (no remaining stones were visible at the cholangiogram).

RESULTS

Forty-nine male (40.8%) and 71 female (59%) were enrolled. The mean age was 67.8 years ± 15.7. The mean common bile duct (CBD) dilation was 19.2 mm ± 3.9 and the mean size of stones 15.8 ± 2.9. DASE was applied as first approach in 38% (62% after initial failure of stones extraction). Technical and clinical success was of 91% and 87% respectively. In those in which DASE failed alternative treatment were adopted. After DASE 18% of patients experienced a complication (bleeding 9%, pancreatitis 8%, perforation 0.8%). At univariable analysis, elective endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (P = 0.031), DASE as first approach (P = 0.032), and cannulation of major papilla followed by guidewire insertion (P = 0.004) were related to low risk of complications. Pre-cut was related to an increased risk of complications (P = 0.01).

CONCLUSION

DASE allowed a higher first-session success rate and can be consider a valid alternative to endoscopic sphincterotomy not only for bigger CBD stones.

Limited precut sphincterotomy combined with endoscopic papillary balloon dilation for common bile duct stone removal in patients with difficult biliary cannulation

Background

Difficult biliary cannulation in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) can result in failure of common bile duct (CBD) stone removal and pancreatitis. The present study aimed to report the efficacy and safety of limited precut sphincterotomy (PS) combined with endoscopic papillary balloon dilation (EPBD) for CBD stone removal in patients with difficult biliary cannulation, and the complications associated with this combined procedure.

Methods

A total of 3305 patients underwent ERCP in our hospital between October 2009 and September 2014 and 258 were diagnosed with difficult biliary cannulation. Of these 258 patients, 58 underwent limited PS combined with EPBD for CBD stone removal, and these 58 patients were included in this retrospective study.

Results

The overall success rate was 94.8 % (55/58), and the success rate for single-session removal was 87.9 % (51/58). The mean procedure time was 41 ± 11.48 min (range, 20–72 min). Mechanical lithotripsy was needed in 10.3 % (6/58) of patients. Procedure-related complications included bleeding in 3.4 % (2/58), pancreatitis in 8.6 % (5/58) and biliary tract infection (BTI) in 1.7 % (1/58) of patients.

Conclusions

The therapeutic outcome of limited PS combined with EPBD for CBD stone removal in patients with difficult biliary cannulation was good with an acceptable complication rate. It could be an alternative to PS and “early” limited PS should be used for prompt identification of the bile duct. Limited PS combined with EPBD is safe and effective for CBD stone removal in patients with difficult biliary cannulation.

Long-term recurrence of bile duct stones after endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation with sphincterotomy: 4-year extended follow-up of a randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation with biliary sphincterotomy (EPLBD + EBS) is safe and effective in patients with large common bile duct (CBD) stones. However, data on long-term outcomes after EPLBD + EBS remain limited. We sought to prospectively evaluate the long-term recurrence of CBD stones after EPLBD + EBS and to identify the associated factors.

METHODS

We conducted an extended follow-up of a previous randomized trial (2009-2011) comparing the outcomes of 30- versus 60-s large balloon dilation. A total of 106 trial participants undergoing successful CBD stone clearance by EPLBD + EBS were prospectively followed up for up to 4 years (range 19-48 months). Various risk factors were analysed to assess predictors of long-term recurrence of stones.

RESULTS

Recurrent CBD stones appeared in 8/106 (7.5 %) patients during a mean follow-up of 30.5 ± 5.5 months. The mean diameter of CBD was significantly higher in the recurrence versus non-recurrence group (2.0 ± 4.9 vs 1.6 ± 0.9 cm, p = 0.008). Multivariate analysis revealed that CBD diameter was the only predictor significantly associated with the long-term recurrence of stones (odds ratio 1.2, p = 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

EPLBD + EBS is associated with a low rate of long-term CBD stone recurrence. However, the risk is significantly higher in patients with a more dilated CBD.

Significance of Endoscopic Sphincterotomy Preceding Endoscopic Papillary Large Balloon Dilation in the Management of Bile Duct Stones

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation (EPLBD) is safe and effective in management of common bile duct stones (CBDS). Endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) prior to EPLBD has been performed as a standard procedure. However, the significance of EST prior to EPLBD has not been well studied yet.

AIMS

To compare the clinical outcomes of EPLBD with and without EST to evaluate the significance of EST.

METHODS

Between April 2010 and March 2015, a total of 82 patients with naïve papillae underwent EPLBD with or without EST for the management of CBDS. A retrospective analysis compared the efficacy and safety of EPLBD with and without EST.

RESULTS

Basic patient characteristics were not significantly different between the groups that underwent EPLBD with EST (n = 27) and without EST (n = 55). Complete stone removal rates were similar between the groups (100 % in the EST group and 98 % in the non-EST group, p = 1.00). There was no significant difference in the median balloon size (13 mm in both groups, p = 0.445), rate of application of mechanical lithotripsy (26 vs. 35 % in the EST and non-EST groups, respectively, p = 0.463), or the median procedure time (38 vs. 34 min in the EST and non-EST groups, respectively, p = 0.682). The overall adverse event rates were not statistically different (4 vs. 7 % in the EST and non-EST groups, respectively, p = 1.00). Pancreatitis, cholangitis, and hemorrhage rates were also similar in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

EST prior to EPLBD may be unnecessary since this study did not demonstrate its benefits.

A Preliminary Comparison of Endoscopic Sphincterotomy, Endoscopic Papillary Large Balloon Dilation, and Combination of the Two in Endoscopic Choledocholithiasis Treatment

Background

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is commonly performed to remove bile duct stones. Endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST), endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation (EPLBD), and endoscopic sphincterotomy plus large balloon dilation (ESLBD) are 3 methods used to enlarge the papillary orifice, but their efficacy and safety remains controversial. This study aimed to compare these methods for treating common bile duct (CBD) stones.

Material/Methods

Between July 2011 and December 2013, 255 consecutive patients with proven CBD stones were randomly assigned to EST, EPLBD, or ESLBD (n=85/group). The stone clearance rate, cannulation time, procedural time, frequency of mechanical lithotripsy (ML) use, complications, mortality, and procedural costs were compared.

Results

A total of 92.9%, 91.8%, and 96.5% of the patients in the EST, EPBD, and ESBD groups had stones cleared at first ERCP (P=0.519), respectively. ML was used in 9.4%, 14.1%, and 8.2% of the patients in the EST, EPLBD, and ESLBD groups (P=0.419). The costs of EPLBD were higher than EST and lower than ESLBD (P<0.001). Complications occurred in 4.7%, 4.7%, and 5.9% of the patients in the EST, EPLBD, and ESLBD groups, respectively (P=1.000). The proportion in severity was similar (P=0.693). None of the patients died after the procedures. The rates of the post-ERCP pancreatitis, cholangitis, and bleeding were similar among all groups.

Conclusions

EST, EPLBD, and ESLBD might clear CBD stones with equal efficacy and safety. A non-inferiority trial might be necessary to confirm these results.

Effects Comparison between Endoscopic Papillary Large Balloon Dilatation and Endoscopic Sphincterotomy for Common Bile Duct Stone Removal

Endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) is a treatment of choice for stone extraction and is now most frequently used. The study was to compare the efficacy of endoscopic papillary large balloon dilatation (EPLBD) and endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) for common bile duct stone removal. Trials comparing the effects between EPLBD and EST treatment were searched according to the study protocol. Overall stone removal rate, complete removal rate in 1st session, treatment duration, mechanical lithotripsy using rate, and overall complication rate were compared using risk ratio (RR) and mean difference (MD) and their 95% confidence interval (CI) via RevMan 5.2 software. For overall stone removal rate, two therapies showed similar effect, but EPLBD showed better overall stone removal rate for stone >10 mm in diameter. For complete stone removal rate in 1st session, no difference was found, even for those with stone >10 mm in diameter; EPLBD showed longer treatment duration, higher mechanical lithotripsy using rate obvious overall complications rate, and more serious bleeding, whereas there were no significant differences for perforation, hyperamylasemia, pancreatitis, and cholecystitis/cholangitis. EPLBD showed better efficacy in certain conditions compared to EST, however with shortcomings, such as more duration, higher mechanical lithotripsy using rate, more serious overall complications rate, and bleeding.

Is endoscopic papillary large balloon dilatation without endoscopic sphincterotomy effective?

AIM: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of endoscopic papillary large balloon dilatation (EPLBD) without endoscopic sphincterotomy in a prospective study.

METHODS: From July 2011 to August 2013, we performed EPLBD on 41 patients with naïve papillae prospectively. For sphincteroplasty of EPLBD, endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) was not performed, and balloon diameter selection was based on the distal common bile duct diameter. The balloon was inflated to the desired pressure. If the balloon waist did not disappear, and the desired pressure was satisfied, we judged the dilatation as complete. We used a retrieval balloon catheter or mechanical lithotripter (ML) to remove stones and assessed the rates of complete stone removal, number of sessions, use of ML and adverse events. Furthermore, we compared the presence or absence of balloon waist disappearance with clinical characteristics and endoscopic outcome.

RESULTS: The mean diameters of the distal and maximum common bile duct were 13.5 ± 2.4 mm and 16.4 ± 3.1 mm, respectively. The mean maximum transverse-diameter of the stones was 13.4 ± 3.4 mm, and the mean number of stones was 3.0 ± 2.4. Complete stone removal was achieved in 97.5% (40/41) of cases, and ML was used in 12.2% (5/41) of cases. The mean number of sessions required was 1.2 ± 0.62. Pancreatitis developed in two patients and perforation in one. The rate of balloon waist disappearance was 73.1% (30/41). No significant differences were noted in procedure time, rate of complete stone removal (100% vs 100%), number of sessions (1.1 vs 1.3, P = 0.22), application of ML (13% vs 9%, P = 0.71), or occurrence of pancreatitis (3.3% vs 9.1%, P = 0.45) between cases with and without balloon waist disappearance.

CONCLUSION: EST before sphincteroplasty may be unnecessary in EPLBD. Further investigations are needed to verify the relationship between the presence or absence of balloon waist disappearance.

Comparison of the usefulness of endoscopic papillary large-balloon dilation with endoscopic sphincterotomy for large and multiple common bile duct stones

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) is currently recognized as the primary endoscopic treatment for common bile duct stones. However, it is difficult to remove multiple (≥ 3) or large (≥ 15 mm) common bile duct stones with EST alone. Recently, EST plus endoscopic papillary large-balloon dilation (EPLBD) was reported to be an effective treatment for such bile duct stones. We compared the results of EST and EST + EPLBD for multiple (≥ 3) or large (≥ 15 mm) stones that were difficult to treat using EST alone. We also compared the complication rates between the techniques.

METHODS

Seventy patients with large (largest diameter, ≥ 15 mm) or ≥ 3 common bile duct stones treated in our department between April 2010 and March 2013 underwent EST + EPLBD (n = 34) or EST alone (n = 36). We compared final successful stone removal rates, rates of successful stone removal in the first session, procedure times, status of concurrent mechanical lithotripsy (ML), and complications between the EST + EPLBD and EST groups.

RESULTS

The rates of final successful stone removal were similar between the two groups (EST + EPLBD: 100 % vs. EST: 89 %; p = 0.115). The rate of successful stone removal in the first session was significantly higher in the EST + EPLBD group (EST + EPLBD: 88 % vs. EST: 56 %; p = 0.03). Moreover, the procedure time was significantly shorter (EST + EPLBD: 42 min vs. EST: 67 min; p = 0.011) and the rate of ML use was significantly lower in the EST + EPLBD group (EST + EPLBD: 50 % vs. EST: 94 %; p < 0.001). Complications like pancreatitis and bleeding occurred in three patients in the EST + EPLBD group and in 10 patients in the EST group, but the differences were not statistically significant (EST + EPLBD: 9 % vs. EST: 25 %; p = 0.112).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that EST + EPLBD is an effective therapy for patients with difficult-to-treat multiple or large common bile duct stones, because it requires fewer sessions and shorter operative times than EST alone.

Endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation for bile duct stones in elderly patients

AIM: To investigate whether endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation (EPLBD) can be safety and effectively performed in patients aged ≥ 80 years.

METHODS: Lithotomy by EPLBD was conducted in 106 patients with bile duct stones ≥ 13 mm in size or with three or more bile duct stones ≥ 10 mm. The patients were divided into group A (< 80 years) and group B (≥ 80 years). Procedure success rate, number of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatographies (ERCP), and incidence of complications were examined in both groups.

RESULTS: Group B tended to include significantly more patients with peripapillary diverticulum, hypertension, hyperlipemia, cerebrovascular disease/dementia, respiratory disease/cardiac disease, and patients administered an anticoagulant or antiplatelet agent (P < 0.05). The success rate of the initial lithotomy was 88.7 (94/106)%. The final lithotomy rate was 100 (106/106)%. Complications due to treatment procedure occurred in 4.72 (5/106)% of the patients. There was no significant difference in procedure success rate, number of ERCP, or incidence of complications between group A and group B.

CONCLUSION: EPLBD can be safely performed in elderly patients, the same as in younger patients.

Endoscopic sphincterotomy with large balloon dilation versus endoscopic sphincterotomy for bile duct stones: a systematic review and meta-analysis

The safety and efficacy of endoscopic sphincterotomy with large balloon dilation (EPLBD) are unclear. This study compares the safety and efficacy between EPLBD and endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST). Patients and Methods. Literatures were searched for randomized controlled trials in PUBMED, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library. Outcome measurements included adverse events; stone removal rate; requirement of mechanical lithotripsy. Results. Four RCTs with a total of 596 patients were included. Three RCTs compared EPLBD versus EST alone for stone removal; one RCT compared EPLBD versus EST plus mechanical lithotripsy for stone removal. Pooled data from three RCTs showed that there was no significant difference in the adverse event of ERCP. A significantly higher cholangitis rate was seen in patients who received EST plus mechanical lithotripsy, compared to those treated with EPLBD (13.3% versus 0.0, P = 0.026). No statistical difference was found between EPLBD and EST for stone removal rate. Significant differences in requirement of mechanical lithotripsy were seen with removal of large stones (>15 mm), with EPLBD reducing the use of mechanical lithotripsy (RR: 0.73; 95% CI: 0.54–0.99). Conclusions. EPLBD and EST have similar efficacy and safety for bile duct stones clearance. With larger stones, EPLBD can reduce requirement of mechanical lithotripsy.

Balloon dilation itself may not be a major determinant of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is the essential first modality for common bile duct (CBD) stone therapy. The conventional endoscopic treatment for CBD stones is stone removal after endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST). Stone removal after papillary stretching using balloon dilation instead of the conventional method has been widely adopted. There are many reports regarding endoscopic papillary balloon dilation (EPBD) utilizing a small balloon (< 10 mm) instead of EST for the removal of small CBD stones. In contrast, two cases of mortality due to post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) were reported after an EPBD clinical trial in the Western world, and the psychological barrier caused by these incidences hinders the use of this technique in Western countries. Endoscopic papillar large balloon dilation (EPLBD), which is used to treat large CBD stones, was not widely adopted when first introduced due to concerns about perforation and severe pancreatitis from the use of a large balloon (12-20 mm). However, as experience with this procedure accumulates, the occurrence of PEP with EPLBD is confirmed to be much lower than with EPBD. This report reviews whether EPBD and EPLBD, two procedures that use balloon dilation but differ in terms of indications and concept, contribute to the occurrence of PEP.

Endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation for removal of bile duct stones

AIM

To investigate the efficacy and outcomes of endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation (EPLBD) for bile duct stones in a multicenter prospective study.

METHODS

Lithotomy by EPLBD was conducted in 124 patients with bile duct stones ≥ 13 mm in size or with three or more bile duct stones ≥ 10 mm. After endoscopic sphincterotomy, the papilla was dilated using balloons 12-20 mm in diameter fitting the bile duct diameter.

RESULTS

The success rate of first-time lithotomy was 86.3% (107/124) and the final lithotomy success rate was 100% (124/124). Lithotripsy was needed in 10 of the 124 (13.6%) patients. Adverse events due to the treatment procedure occurred in 6 (4.8%) patients, all of which were mild. Performing large balloon dilation after endoscopic sphincterotomy in patients with large stones or multiple stones in the bile duct is considered to ensure the safety of treatment and to reduce the need for lithotripsy.

CONCLUSION

It is suggested that treatment by EPLBD for large bile duct stones may be safe and useful.

Advances in the endoscopic management of common bile duct stones

Extraction of common bile duct stones by endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography generally involves biliary sphincterotomy, endoscopic papillary balloon dilation or a combination of both. Endoscopic papillary large-balloon dilation after sphincterotomy has increased the safety of large stone extraction. Cholangioscopically directed electrohydraulic and laser lithotripsy using single-operator mother-daughter systems or direct peroral cholangioscopy using ultraslim endoscopes are increasingly utilized for the management of refractory stones. In this Review, we focus on advances in endoscopic approaches and techniques, with a special emphasis on management strategies for 'difficult' common bile duct stones.

Large balloon dilation post endoscopic sphincterotomy in removal of difficult common bile duct stones: A literature review

Endoscopic sphincterotomy (ES) is the standard therapy in common bile duct (CBD) stones extraction. Large stones (≥ 12 mm) or multiple stones extraction may be challenging after ES alone. Endoscopic sphincterotomy followed by large balloon dilation (ESLBD) has been described as an alternative to ES in these indications. Efficacy, safety, cost-effectiveness and technical aspects of the procedure have been here reviewed. PubMed and Google Scholar search resulted in forty-one articles dealing with CBD stone extraction with 12 mm or more dilation balloons after ES. ESLBD is at least as effective as ES, and reduces the need for additional mechanical lithotripsy. Adverse events rates are not statistically different after ESLBD compared to ES for pancreatitis, bleeding and perforation. However, particular attention should be paid in patients with CBD strictures, which is identified as a risk factor of perforation. ESLBD is slightly cost-effective compared to ES. A small sphincterotomy is usually performed, and may reduce bleeding rates compared to full sphincterotomy. Dilation is performed with 12-20 mm enteral balloons. Optimal inflation time is yet to be determined. The procedure can be performed safely even in patients with peri-ampullary diverticula and surgically altered anatomy. ESLBD is effective and safe in the removal of large CBD stones, however, small sphincterotomy might be preferred and CBD strictures should be considered as a relative contraindication.

Delayed endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation after sphincterotomy for removing large bile duct stones in patients with acute cholangitis

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation (EPLBD) after an endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) is an option for endoscopic removal of large common bile duct (CBD) stones. However, risks or fear of severe adverse events remain.

AIMS

Our aim was to compare the safety and efficacy of delayed EPLBD after EST with concurrent EST and EPLBD in patients with acute cholangitis by large CBD stones.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A total of sixty-eight patients with acute cholangitis from large CBD stones were enrolled in this prospective observational study. Thirty-five patients underwent concurrent EST and EPLBD at the same session (group A). Thirty-three patients underwent only EST at the first session, and EPLBD with stone removal was performed during a second session (group B). The complete stone removal rate and adverse events rate were analyzed.

RESULTS

Both groups resulted in similar outcomes in terms of overall successful stone removal (100% in both groups) and the use of additional lithotripsy (22.9% in group A and 24.2% in group B). Six patients (17.1%) in group A had procedural-related adverse events including one patient with death by perforation, one with significant bleeding, and four with pancreatitis, including one moderate grade. However, there was no procedure-related complication in group B (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Delayed EPLBD after EST may reduce complications associated with EPLBD and extraction of large bile duct stones in patients with acute cholangitis.

Endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation vs endoscopic sphincterotomy for retrieval of common bile duct stones: A meta-analysis

AIM: To compare the efficacy and safety of endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation (EPLBD) with endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) in retrieval of common bile duct stones (≥ 10 mm).

METHODS: PubMed, Web of Knowledge, EBSCO, the Cochrane Library, and EMBASE were searched for eligible studies. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared EPLBD with EST were identified. Data extraction and quality assessment were performed by two independent reviewers using the same criteria. Any disagreement was discussed with a third reviewer until a final consensus was reached. Pooled outcomes of complete bile duct stone clearance, stone clearance in one session, requirement for mechanical lithotripsy, and overall complication rate were determined using relative risk and 95%CI. The separate post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography complications were pooled and determined with the Peto odds ratio and 95%CI because of the small number of events. Heterogeneity was evaluated with the chi-squared test with P≤ 0.1 and I² with a cutoff of ≥ 50%. A fixed effects model was used primarily. A random effects model was applied when significant heterogeneity was detected. Sensitivity analysis was applied to explore the potential bias.

RESULTS: Five randomized controlled trials with 621 participants were included. EPLBD compared with EST had similar outcomes with regard to complete stone removal rate (93.7% vs 92.5%, P = 0.54) and complete duct clearance in one session (82.2% vs 77.7%, P = 0.17). Mechanical lithotripsy was performed less in EPLBD in the retrieval of whole stones (15.5% vs 25.2%, P = 0.003), as well as in the stratified subgroup of stones larger than 15 mm (24.2% vs 40%, P = 0.001). There was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of overall adverse events (7.9% vs 10.7%, P = 0.25), post-ERCP pancreatitis (4.0% vs 5.0%, P = 0.54), hemorrhage (1.7% vs 2.8%, P = 0.32), perforation (0.3% vs 0.9%, P = 0.35) or acute cholangitis (1.3% vs 1.3%, P = 0.92).

CONCLUSION: EPLBD could be advocated as an alternative to EST in the retrieval of large common bile duct stones.

Dilation-assisted stone extraction: an alternative method for removal of common bile duct stones

BACKGROUND

Dilation-assisted stone extraction, also termed small endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) plus endoscopic papillary balloon dilatation, is more efficient than EST alone for removal of large common bile duct (CBD) stones. However, whether this technique can be used for all stones is unclear.

AIM

This study was designed to evaluate the efficacy and complications of dilation-assisted stone extraction for CBD stones.

METHODS

A total of 462 patients with CBD stones were randomized to undergo either dilation-assisted stone extraction (group A) or EST (group B). The efficacy and complications of the two techniques were compared.

RESULTS

Groups A and B showed similar outcomes in terms of stone removal. The short-term and 1-year complication rates were also similar between the two groups. However, the first-session stone removal rate in group A was significantly higher than that in group B. Mechanical lithotripsy was required significantly more often in group B than in group A. The total procedure time and total fluoroscopy time in group A were significantly shorter than those in group B.

CONCLUSIONS

Dilation-assisted stone extraction and EST are safe and effective techniques for the treatment of CBD stones. Dilation-assisted stone extraction has high efficiency. This technique is an alternative method for removal of CBD stones.

Endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation reduces the need for mechanical lithotripsy in patients with large bile duct stones: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background. Removal of large stones can be challenging and frequently requires the use of mechanical lithotripsy (ML). Endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation (EPLBD) following endoscopic sphincterotomy (ES) is a technique that appears to be safe and effective. However, data comparing ES + EPLBD with ES alone have not conclusively shown superiority of either technique. Objective. To assess comparative efficacies and rate of adverse events of these methods. Method. Studies were identified by searching nine medical databases for reports published between 1994 and 2013, using a reproducible search strategy. Only studies comparing ES and ES + EPLBD with regard to large bile duct stone extraction were included. Pooling was conducted by both fixed-effects and random-effects models. Risk ratio (RR) estimates with 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated. Results. Seven studies (involving 902 patients) met the inclusion criteria; 3 of 7 studies were prospective trials. Of the 902 patients, 463 were in the ES + EPLBD group, whereas 439 underwent ES alone. There were no differences noted between the groups with regard to overall stone clearance (98% versus 95%, RR  =  1.01 [0.97, 1.05]; P  = 0.60) and stone clearance at the 1st session (87% versus 79%, RR = 1.11 [0.98, 1.25]; P  = 0.11). ES + EPLBD was associated with a reduced need for ML compared to ES alone (15% versus 32%; RR  =  0.49 [0.32, 0.74]; P  =  0.0008) and was also associated with a reduction in the overall rate of adverse events (11% versus 18%; RR = 0.58 [0.41, 0.81]; P  = 0.001). Conclusions. ES + EPLBD has similar efficacy to ES alone while significantly reducing the need for ML. Further, ES + EPLBD appears to be safe, with a lower rate of adverse events than traditional ES. ES + EPLBD should be considered as a first-line technique in the management of large bile duct stones.

Which is the better treatment for the removal of large biliary stones? Endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation versus endoscopic sphincterotomy

Background/Aims

We evaluated the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation (EPLBD) for large common bile duct (CBD) stone removal compared with endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST).

Methods

A total of 1,580 patients who underwent endoscopic CBD stone extraction between January 2001 and July 2010 were reviewed. The following inclusion criteria were applied: choledocholithiasis treated by EPLBD with minor EST or EST with mechanical lithotripsy; and follow-up >9 months after treatment.

Results

Forty-nine patients with EPLBD and 41 with EST were compared. There was no significant difference in the complication rates and stone recurrence rates between the two groups. However, significantly more endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) sessions were required in the EST group to achieve the complete removal of stones (1.7 times vs 1.3 times; p=0.03). The mean cost required for complete stone removal per patient was significantly higher in the EST group compared to the EPLBD group (USD $1,644 vs $1,225, respectively; p=0.04). Dilated CBD was the only significant factor associated with recurrent biliary stones (relative risk, 1.09; 95% confidence interval, 1.02 to 1.17; p=0.02).

Conclusions

EPLBD is the better treatment (compared to EST) for removing large CBD stones because EPLBD requires fewer ERCP sessions and is less expensive.

Short- and long-term outcomes of endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation with or without sphincterotomy for removal of large bile duct stones

OBJECTIVE

Removal of large bile duct stones by endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation (EPLBD) with endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) has been proven safe and effective. Little evidence supports the benefits of a preceding EST in reducing complications. Recent studies suggest that large bile duct stone removal by EPLBD alone may be safe and effective.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We removed large bile duct stones by EPLBD with EST from March 2008 to February 2010 and without EST from March 2010 to October 2011. Efficacy and safety of EPLBD with or without EST and late biliary complication outcomes were assessed.

RESULTS

Forty-two patients (men/women, 27/15; mean age, 76 years) underwent EPLBD: 14 underwent EPLBD with EST and 28 underwent EPLBD without EST. The mean stone size was 14 mm (9-30 mm). Overall complete stone removal rate was 98%, with 83% achieved in 1 session. Complete duct clearance by EPLBD alone was achieved in 79%. Mechanical lithotripsy was required in 4 (10%) patients. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and electrohydraulic lithotripsy were required in 4 (10%) and 1 (2%) patients, respectively. Pancreatitis and perforation occurred in 2 (5%) and 1 (2%) patients, respectively. Patients treated by EPLBD with EST and by EPLBD alone did not differ in complication outcomes. Six (14%) patients had recurrent bile duct stones, with a significant correlation to dilated common bile duct (p = 0.0351).

CONCLUSIONS

EPLBD is safe and effective in patients with large bile duct stones. Preceding EST may be unnecessary.

Endoscopic sphincterotomy plus large-balloon dilation vs endoscopic sphincterotomy for choledocholithiasis: A meta-analysis

AIM: To perform a meta-analysis of large-balloon dilation (LBD) plus endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) vs EST alone for removal of bile duct stones.

METHODS: Databases including PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, the Science Citation Index, and important meeting abstracts were searched and evaluated by two reviewers independently. The main outcome measures included: complete stone removal, stone removal in the first session, use of mechanical lithotripsy, procedure time, and procedure-related complications. A fixed-effects model weighted by the Mantel-Haenszel method was used for pooling the odds ratio (OR) when heterogeneity was not significant among the studies. When a Q test or I² statistic indicated substantial heterogeneity, a random-effects model weighted by the DerSimonian-Laird method was used.

RESULTS: Six randomized controlled trials involving 835 patients were analyzed. There was no significant heterogeneity for most results; we analyzed these using a fixed-effects model. Meta-analysis showed EST plus LBD caused fewer overall complications than EST alone (OR = 0.53, 95%CI: 0.33-0.85, P = 0.008); subcategory analysis indicated a significantly lower risk of perforation in the EST plus LBD group (Peto OR = 0.14, 95%CI: 0.20-0.98, P = 0.05). Use of mechanical lithotripsy in the EST plus LBD group decreased significantly (OR = 0.26, 95%CI: 0.08-0.82, P = 0.02), especially in patients with a stone size larger than 15 mm (OR = 0.15, 95%CI: 0.03-0.68, P = 0.01). There were no significant differences between the two groups regarding complete stone removal, stone removal in the first session, post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis, bleeding, infection of biliary tract, and procedure time.

CONCLUSION: EST plus LBD is an effective approach for the removal of large bile duct stones, causing fewer complications than EST alone.

Small Endoscopic Sphincterotomy plus Large-Balloon Dilation for Removal of Large Common Bile Duct Stones during ERCP

Objective: This study compared the therapeutic benefits and complication rates of small endoscopic sphincterotomy plus large-balloon dilation (ESLBD) with those of endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) alone for large bile duct stones.

Methods: We compared prospectively ESLBD group (n=63) with conventional EST group (n=69) for the treatment of large bile duct stones (≥15mm). Mechanical lithotripsy was performed when the stone could not be removed using a normal basket. We compared the rates of stone removal, frequency of mechanical lithotripsy use, procedure-related complications, and recurrent stones.

Results: A total of 132 patients were reviewed in the study. The mean age of the patients was 67.9 years. The two groups showed significant differences in complete stone removal during the first session (80.9 vs. 60.8%; P = 0.046), the use of mechanical lithotripsy (7.94 vs. 24.6%; P = 0.041), and less duration of admission (P =0.045). After ERCP, there were some instances of oozing in both groups, All patients recovered completely, 14 patients had recurrent common bile duct stones among the follow-up duration.

Conclusion: The ESLBD technique seems to be a feasible and safe alternative technique for conventional EST and EBD and has no more Post-ERCP complications.

Endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation for the removal of bile duct stones

Endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation (EPLBD) with endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) has been widely used as the alternative to EST along with endoscopic mechanical lithotripsy (EML) for the removal of large or difficult bile duct stones. Furthermore, EPLBD without EST was recently introduced as its simplified alternative technique. Thus, we systematically searched PubMed, Medline, the Cochrane Library and EMBASE, and analyzed all gathered data of EPLBD with and without EST, respectively, by using a single standardized definition, reviewing relevant literatures, published between 2003 and June 2013, where it was performed with large-diameter balloons (12-20 mm). The outcomes, including the initial success rate, the rate of needs for EML, and the overall success rate, and adverse events were assessed in each and compared between both of two procedures: “EPLBD with EST” and “EPLBD without EST”. A total of 2511 procedures from 30 published articles were included in EPLBD with EST, while a total of 413 procedures from 3 published articles were included in EPLBD without EST. In the results of outcomes, the overall success rate was 96.5% in EPLBD with EST and 97.2% in EPLBD without EST, showing no significant difference between both of them. The initial success rate (84.0% vs 76.2%, P < 0.001) and the success rate of EPLBD without EML (83.2% vs 76.7%, P = 0.001) was significantly higher, while the rate of use of EML was significantly lower (14.1% vs 21.6%, P < 0.001), in EPLBD with EST. The rate of overall adverse events, pancreatitis, bleeding, perforation, other adverse events, surgery for adverse events, and fatal adverse events were 8.3%, 2.4%, 3.6%, 0.6%, 1.7%, 0.2% and 0.2% in EPLBD with EST and 7.0%, 3.9%, 1.9%, 0.5%, 0.7%, 0% and 0% in EPLBD without EST, respectively, showing no significant difference between both of them. In conclusion, recent accumulated results of EPLBD with or even without EST suggest that it is a safe and effective procedure for the removal of large or difficult bile duct stones without any additional risk of severe adverse events, when performed under appropriate guidelines.

Endoscopic papillary balloon dilation: Revival of the old technique

Radiologists first described the removal of bile duct stones using balloon dilation in the early 1980s. Recently, there has been renewed interest in endoscopic balloon dilation with a small balloon to avoid the complications of endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) in young patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy. However, there is a disparity in using endoscopic balloon papillary dilation (EPBD) between the East and the West, depending on the origin of the studies. In the early 2000s, EST followed by endoscopic balloon dilation with a large balloon was introduced to treat large or difficult biliary stones. Endoscopic balloon dilation with a large balloon has generally been recognized as an effective and safe method, unlike EPBD. However, fatal complications have occurred in patients with endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation (EPLBD). The safety of endoscopic balloon dilation is still a debatable issue. Moreover, guidelines of indications and techniques have not been established in performing endoscopic balloon dilation with a small balloon or a large balloon. In this article, we discuss the issue of conventional and large balloon endoscopic dilation. We also suggest the indications and optimal techniques of EPBD and EPLBD.