Sixty- versus thirty-seconds papillary balloon dilation after sphincterotomy for the treatment of large bile duct stones: a randomized controlled trial

Optimal dilation duration of 10 mm diameter balloons after limited endoscopic sphincterotomy for common bile duct stones: a randomized controlled trial

Limited endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) combined with endoscopic papillary balloon dilation (EPBD) is widely used. However, the optimal duration of small balloon dilation in choledocholithiasis remains controversial. We aimed to determine the optimal duration for 10 mm diameter balloon dilation after limited EST in choledocholithiasis. In this randomized controlled clinical trial, 320 patients were randomly assigned to receive small balloon dilation (10 mm in diameter) for 1 min (n = 160) or 3 min (n = 160) after deep bile duct cannulation. No significant difference in success rate of stone extraction between the two groups was observed. The incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) was higher in the 1 min group (10.6%) than in the 3 min group (4.4%) (P = 0.034). The logistic regression analysis showed that guidewire into the pancreatic duct, cannulation time > 5 min and 1 min balloon dilation were independent risk factors for PEP. There were no significant differences in other post-ERCP adverse events such as acute cholangitis, bleeding, perforation, etc. between the two groups. In conclusion, 3 min in duration was determined to be the optimal dilation condition for the removal of common bile duct stones.

Distal Biliary Stent Migration in Patients with Irretrievable Bile Duct Stones: Long-Term Comparison Between Straight and Double-Pigtail Stents

BACKGROUND

Prolonged biliary stenting may be considered in high-risk patients with irretrievable bile duct stones (IBDS). Distal stent migration (DSM) is a known complication, although data beyond the recommended interval of temporary stenting (3-6 months) are lacking. We compared the long-term incidence of DSM between straight and double-pigtail stents in patients with IBDS.

METHODS

Consecutive patients with IBDS undergoing plastic biliary stenting (1/2009-12/2019) were retrospectively reviewed. DSM was confirmed on follow-up examination when the stent was no longer present at the papillary orifice nor fluoroscopically visible in the bile duct. Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analyses were used to determine estimates and predictors of DSM.

RESULTS

Overall, 618 biliary stenting procedures (410 patients) were included: 289 with a straight stent (group A) and 329 with a double-pigtail (group B). By Kaplan-Meier analysis, the DSM rates were 8.4 and 14.6% at 6 months, 21.4 and 27.7% at 12 months, 27 and 43.5% at 18 months, and 37.2 and 60.4% at 24 months, for groups A and B, respectively (p = 0.004). Double-pigtail stents were at higher risk for DSM (HR = 7.38, p = 0.04), whereas an inverse correlation was noted with age (HR = 0.97, p = 0.0001). Considering only temporary stenting procedures (≤ 6 months; n = 297), the probability of DSM was not significantly different between the two groups (p = 0.07).

CONCLUSIONS

In a setting of prolonged stenting for IBDS, the probability of DSM appears to be higher when a double-pigtail stent is used and in younger patients. A relative anti-migratory advantage of double-pigtail over straight stents appears negligible in this study.

Endoscopic Management of Complex Biliary Stones

Complex biliary stones may be challenging to remove with standard endoscopic techniques. Factors contributing to complexity include large stone size (≥15 mm), multiple stones, high stone:distal duct ratio, stones above strictures and those in difficult anatomic position. In these cases, additional techniques may be needed, such as endoscopic papillary large balloon dilatation, mechanical lithotripsy, cholangioscopic visually directed lithotripsy, and extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy. The choice of technique depends on local expertise and resources. Cases should be planned to identify the appropriate technique to avoid multiple procedures. This article describes the factors linked to difficulty and the steps to overcome them.

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.

Endoscopic management of difficult common bile duct stones

INTRODUCTION

Common bile duct stones are a very frequent problem in the western world and endoscopic stone clearance is the method of choice for treatment. Despite its common use, endoscopic clearance of common bile duct stones is not always trivial especially in cases involving large or multiple stones.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A literature review regarding different endoscopic techniques was performed for this article and a recommended therapeutic algorithm developed based on the guidelines of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and the German Gastroenterological Society (DGVS).

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

This review gives an overview of currently applied endoscopic techniques, their success and complication rates as well as alternative methods used for cases involving anatomic anomalies. The purpose of this review is to recommend a therapeutic algorithm for the treatment of difficult common bile duct stones.

CONLCLUSIONS

For the treatment of difficult common bile duct stones, combined sphincterotomy and endoscopic large balloon dilation should be first choice. Mechanical lithotripsy and cholangioscopy-guided lithotripsy are close alternatives with nearly equal clearance rates and should be used if accessible. The insertion of a temporary plastic stent is a good choice to gain time to explore further treatment options. Enteroscopy-based ERCP, PTCS or EUS-guided hepaticogastrostomy and stone treatment, while good alternatives for select cases involving anatomic anomalies, should be performed at specialised units.

Endoscopic Treatment of Iatrogenic Perforation of Sigmoid Diverticulum: A Case Report of Multidisciplinary Management

Iatrogenic perforations are severe complications of gastrointestinal endoscopy; therefore, their management should be adequately planned. A 77-year-old man with a history of diverticulosis underwent a colonoscopy for anemia. During the procedure, an iatrogenic perforation occurred suddenly in the sigmoid colon, near a severe angle among the numerous diverticula. Through-the- scope clips were immediately applied to treat it and close mucosal edges. Laboratory tests showed increased inflammation and infection, and although there were no complaints of abdominal pain, the patient had an extremely distended abdomen. A multidisciplinary board began management based on a conservative approach. Pneumoperitoneum was treated with computed tomography-assisted drainage. After 72 hours, his intestinal canalization and laboratory tests were normal. Though this adverse event is rare, a multidisciplinary board should be promptly gathered upon occurrence, even if the patient appears clinically stable, to consider a conservative approach and avoid surgical treatment.

Intelligent difficulty scoring and assistance system for endoscopic extraction of common bile duct stones based on deep learning: multicenter study

BACKGROUND

The study aimed to construct an intelligent difficulty scoring and assistance system (DSAS) for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) treatment of common bile duct (CBD) stones.

METHODS

1954 cholangiograms were collected from three hospitals for training and testing the DSAS. The D-LinkNet34 and U-Net were adopted to segment the CBD, stones, and duodenoscope. Based on the segmentation results, the stone size, distal CBD diameter, distal CBD arm, and distal CBD angulation were estimated. The performance of segmentation and estimation was assessed by mean intersection over union (mIoU) and average relative error. A technical difficulty scoring scale, which was used for assessing the technical difficulty of CBD stone removal, was developed and validated. We also analyzed the relationship between scores evaluated by the DSAS and clinical indicators including stone clearance rate and need for endoscopic papillary large-balloon dilation (EPLBD) and lithotripsy.

RESULTS

The mIoU values of the stone, CBD, and duodenoscope segmentation were 68.35 %, 86.42 %, and 95.85 %, respectively. The estimation performance of the DSAS was superior to nonexpert endoscopists. In addition, the technical difficulty scoring performance of the DSAS was more consistent with expert endoscopists than two nonexpert endoscopists. A DSAS assessment score ≥ 2 was correlated with lower stone clearance rates and more frequent EPLBD.

CONCLUSIONS

An intelligent DSAS based on deep learning was developed. The DSAS could assist endoscopists by automatically scoring the technical difficulty of CBD stone extraction, and guiding the choice of therapeutic approach and appropriate accessories during ERCP.

The ballooning time in endoscopic papillary balloon dilation for removal of bile duct stones: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

So far, there was no consensus regarding balloon dilation time in endoscopic papillary balloon dilation (EPBD). Thus, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the stone removal and overall complication rates of dilation of short and long duration with EPBD.

METHODS

The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; Cochrane Library), Web of Science, EMBASE Databases, and PubMed were searched from their inception to December 1, 2019 for all articles regarding balloon dilation time in EPBD for removal of bile duct stones. The data were extracted and the methodology quality was assessed. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan5.3 software.

RESULTS

Four studies involving a total of 1553 patients were included, 918 in the short dilation group and 635 in the long dilation group. The results of meta-analysis showed that there was no significant difference between the 2 different dilation groups in the complete stone removal in randomized controlled trails (RCTs) group (P = .10) and non-RCTs group (P = 0.45), mechanical lithotripsy requirement (RCTs: P = .92; non-RCTs: P = .47), pancreatitis (RCTs: P = .48; non-RCTs: P = .45), bleeding (RCTs: P = .95; non-RCTs: P = .60), infection of biliary (RCTs: P = .58; non-RCTs: P = .29), perforation (RCTs: P = .32; non-RCTs: P = .37).

CONCLUSION

This systematic review suggests that there no significant difference in the efficacy and safety of dilation of short and long duration for removal of bile duct stones with EPBD.

Diagnosis and management of iatrogenic endoscopic perforations: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Position Statement - Update 2020

1:  ESGE recommends that each center implements a written policy regarding the management of iatrogenic perforations, including the definition of procedures that carry a higher risk of this complication. This policy should be shared with the radiologists and surgeons at each center. 2 : ESGE recommends that in the case of an endoscopically identified perforation, the endoscopist reports its size and location, with an image, and statement of the endoscopic treatment that has been applied. 3:  ESGE recommends that symptoms or signs suggestive of iatrogenic perforation after an endoscopic procedure should be rapidly and carefully evaluated and documented with a computed tomography (CT) scan. 4 : ESGE recommends that endoscopic closure should be considered depending on the type of the iatrogenic perforation, its size, and the endoscopist expertise available at the center. Switch to carbon dioxide (CO2) endoscopic insufflation, diversion of digestive luminal content, and decompression of tension pneumoperitoneum or pneumothorax should also be performed. 5 : ESGE recommends that after endoscopic closure of an iatrogenic perforation, further management should be based on the estimated success of the endoscopic closure and on the general clinical condition of the patient. In the case of no or failed endoscopic closure of an iatrogenic perforation, and in patients whose clinical condition is deteriorating, hospitalization and surgical consultation are recommended.

Optimal dilation time for combined small endoscopic sphincterotomy and balloon dilation for common bile duct stones: a multicentre, single-blinded, randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic sphincterotomy is the established treatment for common bile duct stones. Balloon dilation offers an alternative. Prolonged dilation (300 s) with a 10 mm diameter balloon decreases the occurrence of pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). We aimed to determine the optimal duration of dilation for combined endoscopic sphincterotomy and balloon dilation for the removal of common bile duct stones.

METHODS

We did a multicentre, single-blinded, randomised controlled trial at 15 tertiary surgical centres in China. Eligible patients (≥18 years) with native papilla and common bile duct stones (≤1·5 cm in size and <2 cm in diameter) undergoing ERCP were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1:1) to receive balloon dilation for 0, 30, 60, 180, or 300 s after deep bile duct cannulation. Randomisation was done by an independent statistician using a computer-generated randomisation list with a block size of ten, stratified by centre. Patients and outcome assessors, but not endoscopists and investigators, were masked to treatment allocation. Balloon dilation was done with controlled radial expansion balloons according to common bile duct stone size. Stones were removed using stone retrieval balloons or baskets. The primary endpoint was overall frequency of post-ERCP pancreatitis. The primary efficacy analysis and safety analyses were done in the modified intention-to-treat population, which included all randomly assigned patients with successful cannulation, but excluded those who withdrew consent after randomisation. This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02510495, and is complete.

FINDINGS

Between July 29, 2015, and Dec 1, 2017, 3721 consecutive patients with common bile duct stones were recruited, 1718 of whom were excluded. The remaining 2003 patients underwent a small (3-5 mm) endoscopic sphincterotomy. 83 patients withdrew consent after the ERCP procedure, thus 1920 patients were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis (0 s [n=371], 30 s [n=384], 60 s [n=388], 180 s [n=390], and 300 s [n=387]). Overall, post-ERCP pancreatitis occurred in 199 (10%) of 1920 patients (44 [12%] patients in the 0 s group, 28 [7%] in the 30 s group, 32 [8%] in the 60 s group, 36 [9%] in the 180 s group, and 59 [15%] in the 300 s group). Prolonged dilation (300 s) significantly increased the occurrence of post-ERCP pancreatitis compared with shorter balloon dilation (p=0·002). The frequency of post-ERCP pancreatitis was significantly lower in the 30, 60, and 180 s groups than in the 300 s group (relative risk [RR] 0·48, 95% CI 0·31-0·73; p=0·0005 vs the 30 s group; 0·54, 0·36-0·81; p=0·003 vs the 60 s group; 0·61, 0·41-0·89; p=0·01 vs the 180 s group). The frequency of post-ERCP pancreatitis was significantly higher in the 0 s group than the 30 s group (RR 1·62, 1·04-2·56; p=0·03). No difference in stone extraction (all ≥90%) was observed between groups. Following ERCP, 90 (5%) of 1920 patients had acute cholangitis, 14 (<1%) had acute cholecystitis, and five (<1%) had gastrointestinal bleeding, with no significant differences between groups. One (<1%) patient had Stapfer II perforation, which resolved spontaneously with conservative treatment.

INTERPRETATION

A balloon dilation time of 30 s for combined endoscopic sphincterotomy and balloon dilation reduced the frequency of post-ERCP pancreatitis and was determined to be the optimum dilation time for the removal of common bile duct stones.

FUNDING

National Natural Science Foundation of China, Gansu Competitive Foundation Projects for Technology Development and Innovation.

Endoscopic Papillary Large Balloon Dilation Versus Endoscopic Sphincterotomy for Treatment of Bile Duct Stones

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To review the current literature focusing on the indications, efficacy, and safety of endoscopic papillary balloon dilation (EPBD) and endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation (EPLBD) with or without endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) in the treatment of bile duct stones. • EPBD without EST is associated with a higher risk of post-procedural pancreatitis and lower rate of stone clearance than EST alone. • EPBD without EST should be at least 2 min in duration, and placement of a pancreatic stent and other measures to reduce pancreatitis risk should be considered. • EPBD without EST is most useful to reduce risk of bleeding in patients with coagulopathy. • EPLBD combined with EST can be used as an alternative or adjunct to mechanical lithotripsy in the removal of large or difficult bile duct stones. • EPLBD combined with EST results in fewer complications than EST alone for removal of bile duct stones.

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.

Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society guidelines for endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation

The Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society has developed the 'EPLBD Clinical Practice Guidelines' as fundamental guidelines based on new scientific techniques. EPLBD is a treatment method that has recently become widely used for choledocolithiasis. The evidence level in this field is usually low, and in many instances, the recommendation grading has to be determined on the basis of expert consensus. At this point, the guidelines are divided into the following six sections according to the 'EST Clinical Practice Guidelines': (i) Indications, (ii) procedures, (iii) special cases, (iv) procedure-related adverse events, (v) treatment outcomes, and (vi) postoperative follow up observation.

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.

Reliability of endoscopic ultrasound in predicting the number and size of common bile duct stones before endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) is accurate for the diagnosis of choledocholithiasis; however, data are lacking regarding the prediction of stone number and size.

AIMS

To evaluate the concordance between EUS and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in stone number and size assessment.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of consecutive patients undergoing ERCP due to detection of choledocholithiasis by EUS. Concordance between EUS and ERCP was defined as difference in stone diameter <30% and perfect match in stone number.

RESULTS

Among 116 patients, 25% had sludge, 37.9% had single and 37.1% had multiple stones. Overall concordance was 62.9%. Sludge was correctly assessed in 85.7%, single stone in 81.3% and multiple stones in 45.1% (P=0.0001). EUS was accurate in 78.8% of patients who underwent both procedures in the same session, but only in 61.9% in those who underwent ERCP within 1 week. Multivariate analysis identified the single-session approach (odds ratio 2.894; P=0.035) and multiple stones (odds ratio 0.244; P=0.001) as independent predictors of concordance.

CONCLUSIONS

Concordance between EUS and ERCP was correlated to the single session approach and inversely correlated to the presence of multiple stones. EUS may predict potentially difficult ERCP allowing to plan the best treatment strategy.

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.

A comparative study of one minute versus five seconds endoscopic biliary balloon dilation after small sphincterotomy in choleducolithiasis

Background:

Limited sphincterotomy and endoscopic papillary balloon dilation (EPBD) is a low-risk method for the treatment of choleducolithiasis. Traditionally one minute ballooning time (BT) is applied; however, the effective BT is not clear. In this study, we compare five seconds and one minute ballooning time.

Materials and Methods:

In this single-blind, randomized, clinical trial 60 patients with common bile duct (CBD) stones documented in ultrasonography or magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP), with no severe hepatic, biliary or systemic diseases, enrolled in the study. The patients were randomly assigned to receive EPBD with either five seconds (n = 31) or one minute (n = 29) ballooning time (BT) after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and small sphincterotomy. Then stones were retrieved with an extractor balloon. The patients were followed for 48 hours to check the possible complications.

Results:

Successful CBD stone removal was the same in the five-second and one-minute BT groups (93.5% vs. 96.6%; P = 0.594). Pancreatitis occurred in three (9.7%) patients in the five-second BT group and in six (20.7%) patients in the one-minute BT group (P = 0.233). No hemorrhage or perforation was noted.

Conclusions:

After a small sphincterotomy, EPBD in the five-second and one-minute BT groups had a similar efficacy. Small sphincterotomy combined with very short BT is a safe and effective method for CBD stone removal.

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.

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.

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.

Prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis

Pancreatitis is one of the most common complications of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). A variety of patient-related and procedure-related factors have been identified to risk-stratify patients. Several measures can be undertaken in order to decrease the risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis in high-risk groups. These measures include pancreatic duct stenting and rectal indomethacin, amongst others.

Endoscopic papillary balloon dilation for difficult common bile duct stones: Our experience

AIM: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of endoscopic balloon dilation (EBD) performed for common bile duct (CBD) stones.

METHODS: From a computer database, we retrospectively analyzed the data relating to EBD performed in patients at the gastrointestinal unit of the Sandro Pertini Hospital of Rome (small center with low case volume) who underwent endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) for CBD from January 1, 2010 to February 29, 2012. All patients had a proven diagnosis of CBD stones studied with echography, RMN-cholangiography and, when necessary, with computed tomography of the abdomen (for example, in cases with pace-makers). Prophylactic therapies, with gabexate mesilate 24 h before the procedure and with an antibiotic (ceftriaxone 2 g) 1 h before, were administered in all patients. The duodenum was intubated with a side-viewing endoscope under deep sedation with intravenous midazolam and propofol. The patients were placed in the supine position in almost all cases. EBD of the ampulla was performed under endoscopic and fluoroscopic guidance with a balloon through the scope (Hercules, wireguided balloon^®, Cook Ireland Ltd. and CRE^®, Microvasive, Boston Scientific Co., Natick, MA, United States).

RESULTS: A total of 14 patients (9 female, 5 male; mean age of 73 years; range 57-82 years) were enrolled in the study, in whom a total of 15 EBDs were performed. All patients underwent minor endoscopic sphincterotomy (ES) prior to the EBD. The size of balloon insufflation depended on stone size and CBD dilation and this was performed until it reached 16 mm in diameter. EBD was performed under endoscopic and fluoroscopic guidance. The balloon was gradually filled with diluted contrast agent and was maintained inflated in position for 45 to 60 s before deflation and removal. The need for precutting the major papilla was 21.4%. In one patient (an 81-year-old), EBD was performed in a Billroth II. Periampullary diverticula were found only in a 74-year-old female. The adverse event related to the procedures (ERCP + ES) was only an intra procedural bleeding (6.6%) that occurred after ES and was treated immediately with adrenaline sclerotherapy. No postoperative complications were reported.

CONCLUSION: With the current endoscopic techniques, very few patients with choledocholithiasis require surgery. EBD is an efficacious and safe procedure.