Sequential endoscopic papillary balloon dilatation following limited sphincterotomy for common bile duct stones

Feasibility of Endoscopic Papillary Large Balloon Dilation in Patients with Difficult Bile Duct Stones without Dilatation of the Lower Part of the Extrahepatic Bile Duct

Background/Aims

There is no consensus for using endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation (EPLBD) in patients without dilatation of the lower part of the bile duct (DLBD). We evaluated the feasibility and safety of EPLBD for the removal of difficult bile duct stones (diameter ≥10 mm) in patients without DLBD.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed the records of 209 patients who underwent EPLBD for the removal of bile duct stones from October 2009 to July 2014. Primary outcomes were the clearance rate and additional mechanical lithotripsy. Secondary outcomes were the incidence of complications and recurrence rate.

Results

Fifty-seven patients had DLBD (27.3%), and 152 did not have DLBD (72.7%). There were no significant differences in the overall success rate or the use of mechanical lithotripsy. Success rate during the first session and procedure time were better in the DLBD than the without-DLBD group (75.7% vs 66.7%, 48.1±23.0 minutes vs 58.4±31.7 minutes, respectively). As for complications, there were no significant differences in the incidence of pancreatitis, perforation or bleeding after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. The recurrence rate did not differ significantly between the two groups.

Conclusions

EPLBD is a useful and safe method for common bile duct stone removal in patients without DLBD.

Influence of periampullary diverticulum on the occurrence of pancreaticobiliary diseases and outcomes of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Periampullary diverticulum (PAD) is frequently encountered in patients undergoing endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). The aim of this study was to investigate the association of PAD with pancreaticobiliary diseases as well as the impact of PAD on the technical success of ERCP and different methods of bile duct stone extraction.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A total of 1489 cases of patients with PAD were identified from 6390 patients who underwent ERCP. These patients were compared with 1500 controls without PAD in terms of biliary stone formation, technical success, and complications of ERCP.

RESULTS

Patients with PAD had increased prevalence of bile duct stones, gallstones, and cholangitis (P<0.01). Successful cannulation rates were similar in the PAD and the control group (98.59 vs. 99.07%, P=0.225). The incidence of complications did not differ between the PAD and the control group. Successful stone removal rate of endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) was lower in the PAD group than in the control group (83.53 vs. 94.31%, P=0.005). In patients with PAD, the rate of successful stone removal was lower in the EST group than in the endoscopic papillary balloon dilation (EPBD) and EPBD combined with limited EST (ESBD) group. The rates of complications were similar among different treatments (EST, EPBD, or ESBD) in patients with PAD.

CONCLUSION

PAD is associated with bile duct stones, gallstones, and cholangitis. In addition, PAD should not be considered a barrier to a successful cannulation. Moreover, EST is less effective than EPBD and ESBD in patients with PAD, whereas EST, EPBD, and ESBD are equally safe in patients with PAD.

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.

Is endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation safe for treating large CBD stones?

In recent years, endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation (EPLBD) with endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) has been shown to be an effective technique for the removal of large or difficult common bile duct (CBD) stones, as an alternative to EST. Reviewing the literature published since 2003, it is understood that EPLBD has fewer associated overall complications than EST. Bleeding occurred less frequently with EPLBD than with EST. There was no significant difference in postendoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis or perforation. 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. Since use of a larger balloon can tear the sphincter as well as the bile duct, possibly resulting in bleeding and perforation, a balloon size that is equal to or smaller in diameter than the diameter of the native distal bile duct is recommended. The maximum transverse diameter of the stone and the balloon-stone diameter ratio have a tendency to affect the success or failure of complete removal of stones by large balloon dilation to prevent adverse effects such as perforation and bleeding. One should take into account the size of the native bile duct, the size and burden of stones, the presence of stricture of distal bile duct, and the presence of the papilla in or adjacent to a diverticulum. Even though the results of EPLBD indicate that it is a relatively safe procedure in patients with common duct stones with a dilated CBD, the recommended guidelines should be followed strictly for the prevention of major adverse events such as bleeding and perforation.

Small sphincterotomy combined with endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation vs sphincterotomy alone for removal of common bile duct stones

AIM: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of endoscopic papillary large diameter balloon dilation (EPLBD) following limited endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) and EST alone for removal of large common bile duct (CBD) stones.

METHODS: We retrospectively compared EST + EPLBD (group A, n = 64) with EST alone (group B, n = 89) for the treatment of large or multiple bile duct stones. The success rate of stone clearance, procedure-related complications and incidents, frequency of mechanical lithotripsy use, and recurrent stones were recorded.

RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups regarding periampullary diverticula (35.9% vs 34.8%, P > 0.05), pre-cut sphincterotomy (6.3% vs 6.7%, P > 0.05), size (12.1 ± 2.0 mm vs 12.9 ± 2.6 mm, P > 0.05) and number (2.2 ± 1.9 vs 2.4 ± 2.1, P > 0.05) of stones or the diameters of CBD (15.1 ± 3.3 mm vs 15.4 ± 3.6 mm, P > 0.05). The rates of overall stone removal and stone removal in the first session were not significantly different between the two groups [62/64 (96.9%) vs 84/89 (94.4%), P > 0.05; and 58/64 (90.6%) vs 79/89 (88.8%), P > 0.05, respectively]. The rates of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis and hyperamylasemia were not significantly different between the two groups [3/64 (4.7%) vs 4/89 (4.5%), P > 0.05; 7/64 (10.9%) vs 9/89 (10.1%), P > 0.05, respectively]. There were no cases of perforation, acute cholangitis, or cholecystitis in the two groups. The rate of bleeding and the recurrence of CBD stones were significantly lower in group A than in group B [1/64 (1.6%) vs 5/89 (5.6%), P < 0.05; 1/64 (1.6%) vs 6/89 (6.7%), P < 0.05, respectively].

CONCLUSION: EST + EPLBD is an effective and safe endoscopic approach for removing large or multiple CBD stones.

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.

Endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation in patients with periampullary diverticula

AIM: To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation (EPLBD) for bile duct stone extraction in patients with periampullary diverticula.

METHODS: The records of 223 patients with large common bile duct stones (≥ 10 mm) who underwent EPLBD (12-20 mm balloon diameter) with or without limited endoscopic sphincterotomy (ES) from July 2006 to April 2011 were retrospectively reviewed. Of these patients, 93 (41.7%) had periampullary diverticula (PAD), which was categorized into three types. The clinical variables of EPLBD with limited ES (EPLBD + ES) and EPLBD alone were analyzed according to the presence of PAD.

RESULTS: Patients with PAD were significantly older than those without (75.2 ± 8.8 years vs 69.7 ± 10.9 years, P = 0.000). The rates of overall stone removal and complete stone removal in the first session were not significantly different between the PAD and non-PAD groups, however, there was significantly less need for mechanical lithotripsy in the PAD group (3.2% vs 11.5%, P = 0.026). Overall stone removal rates, complete stone removal rates in the first session and the use of mechanical lithotripsy were not significantly different between EPLBD + ES and EPLBD alone in patients with PAD (96.6% vs 97.1%; 72.9% vs 88.2%; and 5.1% vs 0%, respectively). No significant differences with respect to the rates of pancreatitis, perforation, and bleeding were observed between EPLBD + ES and EPLBD alone in the PAD group (3.4% vs 14.7%, P = 0.095; 0% vs 0%; and 3.4% vs 8.8%, P = 0.351, respectively).

CONCLUSION: EPLBD with limited ES and EPLBD alone are safe and effective modalities for common bile duct stone removal in patients with PAD, regardless of PAD subtypes.

Intraprocedural quality in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: a meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

In 2006, the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG)/the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) Taskforce on Quality in Endoscopy published quality indicators for the major gastrointestinal procedures. Our primary aim was to use the published literature to assess current endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) intraprocedural performance and compare it to the targets set by the ACG/ASGE taskforce. Our secondary aim was to determine whether performance varies across different health-care settings (academic and community), study designs (prospective and retrospective), and trainee participation.

METHODS

A PubMed and EMBASE literature search from 1/1/2006 to 2/1/2013 was conducted. Articles were selected based on title, abstract, full text, and reporting of success rates for the intraprocedural quality indicators. Success rates, represented as numerical proportions, were collected from each study. For each success rate, a standard error and a 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated. A random-effects meta-analysis model was used to weight each study, and a cumulative, weighted success rate (or effect size) for each indicator was determined. Random-effects meta-regression was then used to examine the impact of study setting, design, and trainee involvement on each quality indicator.

RESULTS

A total of 8,005 articles were initially retrieved. Following the application of predefined criteria, 52 articles remained. The cumulative, weighted bile duct cannulation success rate was 89.3% (95% CI 0.866-0.919); pancreatic duct cannulation was 85.0% (95% CI 0.813-0.886); precut utilization rate was 10.5% (95% CI 0.087-0.123); common bile duct stone extraction rate was 88.3% (95% CI 0.825-0.941); and the rate of successful biliary stenting below the common bile duct bifurcation was 97.5% (95% CI 0.967-0.984). Subgroup analysis with meta-regression showed no statistically significant differences between academic and community settings, prospective and retrospective study designs, and trainee participation on success across bile duct cannulation, precut utilization, and common bile duct stone extraction (insufficient observations/variance for pancreatic duct cannulation and biliary stent placement).

CONCLUSIONS

ERCP intraprocedural quality is in good standing. On the basis of this analysis, the two targets that could be potentially revised are precut utilization and biliary stenting. This analysis was confined to the published literature and therefore, in general, reflects the ERCP performance of institutions, primarily academic, that are conducting clinical research. Thus, it is difficult to generalize this performance assessment to the broader ERCP community as a whole.

Endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation after limited sphincterotomy for difficult biliary stones

AIM: To assess the efficacy and safety of endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation after biliary sphincterotomy for difficult bile duct stones retrieval.

METHODS: Retrospective review of consecutive patients submitted to the technique during 18 mo. The main outcomes considered were: efficacy of the procedure (complete stone clearance; number of sessions; need of lithotripsy) and complications.

RESULTS: A total of 30 patients with a mean age of 68 ± 10 years, 23 female (77%) and 7 male (23%) were enrolled. In 10 patients, a single stone was found in the common bile duct (33%) and in 20 patients multiple stones (67%) were found. The median diameter of the stones was 17 mm (12-30 mm). Dilations were performed with progressive diameter Through-The-Scope balloons (up to 12, 15) or 18 mm. Complete retrieval of stones was achieved in a single session in 25 patients (84%) and in two sessions in 4 patients (13%). Failure occurred in 1 case (6%). Mechanical lithotripsy was performed in 6 cases (20%). No severe complications occurred. One patient (3%) had mild-grade post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis.

CONCLUSION: Endoscopic balloon dilatation with a large balloon after endoscopic sphincterotomy is a safe and effective technique that could be considered an alternative choice in therapeutic ERCP.

Recurrence of bile duct stones after endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation combined with limited sphincterotomy: long-term follow-up study

Background/Aims

Endoscopic papillary large-balloon dilation combined with limited endoscopic sphincterotomy (EPLBD+ES) is promising for the treatment of common bile duct (CBD) stones. The aim of this study was to clarify the recurrence rate and the risk factors for CBD stones after EPLBD+ES.

Methods

In total, 100 patients who underwent EPLBD+ES from 2006 to 2007 were evaluated retrospectively. One hundred and nine patients who were treated with endoscopic sphincterotomy (ES) from 2004 to 2005 were set as the historical control group. Various risk factors for the recurrence of bile duct stones were analyzed.

Results

Of the 209 patients, the duration of follow-up was 32.5±4.5 months in the EPLBD+ES group and 31.8±6.0 months in the ES group. The recurrence rate of CBD stones was 11.0% (11/100) in the EPLBD+ES group and 13.8% (15/109) in the ES group (p=0.546). The cumulative recurrence rate of stones was not significantly different between the EPLBD+ES and ES groups (log rank, p=0.537). Univariate analysis showed that the diameter of the CBD (≥22 mm) was the only predictive variable that could differentiate recurrence from nonrecurrence in the EPLBD+ES group. Multivariate analysis revealed that the diameter of the bile duct was the only risk factor for stone recurrence (p=0.022; odds ratio, 1.175; 95% confidence interval, 1.023 to 1.348).

Conclusions

The recurrence rate of CBD stones after EPLBD+ES is comparable to that of the ES group, and a dilated CBD appears to increase the risk of bile duct stone recurrence.

Current status of endoscopic papillary balloon dilation for the treatment of bile duct stones

Background/purpose

While endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) is performed worldwide for the removal of common bile duct stones, many biliary endoscopists hesitate to regard endoscopic papillary balloon dilation (EPBD) as a standard procedure for treatment. Therefore, the aim of this review is to re-evaluate the status of EPBD for the treatment of common bile duct stones.

Results

A major benefit of EPBD is preservation of papillary function, which is not complete but may be greater than that after EST. The disadvantages of EPBD compared with EST are that EPBD is difficult to use for the removal of larger stones because of the smaller biliary opening, it requires more frequent use of mechanical lithotripsy, and it is associated with a higher incidence of pancreatitis, although the risks of bleeding and perforation are low. Since the biliary sphincter is easily dilated with a balloon catheter, EPBD may be effective for patients with anatomic anomalies, such as after gastric bypass surgery or in the presence of a periampullary diverticulum. No standard procedure exists to reduce the risk of acute pancreatitis with EPBD.

Conclusion

EPBD is feasible, however, we must pursue less hazardous techniques of papillary balloon dilation. Furthermore, we must understand the benefits and limitations of EPBD and determine whether it could provide clinical benefits for long-term complications.

Small sphincterotomy combined with endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation versus sphincterotomy

AIM: To compare small sphincterotomy combined with endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation (SES + ELBD) and endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) for large bile duct stones.

METHODS: We compared prospectively SES + ELBD (group A, n = 27) with conventional EST (group B, n = 28) for the treatment of large bile duct stones (≥ 15 mm). When the stone could not be removed with a normal basket, mechanical lithotripsy was performed. We compared the rates of complete stone removal with one session and application of mechanical lithotripsy.

RESULTS: No significant differences were observed in the mean largest stone size (A: 20.8 mm, B: 21.3 mm), bile duct diameter (A: 21.4 mm, B: 20.5 mm), number of stones (A: 2.2, B: 2.3), or procedure time (A: 18 min, B: 19 min) between the two groups. The rates of complete stone removal with one session was 85% in group A and 86% in group B (P = 0.473). Mechanical lithotripsy was required for stone removal in nine of 27 patients (33%) in group A and nine of 28 patients (32%, P = 0.527) in group B.

CONCLUSION: SES + ELBD did not show significant benefits compared to conventional EST, especially for the removal of large (≥ 15 mm) bile duct stones.