Comparison of the effects of retrieval balloons and basket catheters for bile duct stone removal on the rate of post-ERCP pancreatitis

Comprehensive review on small common bile duct stones

Common bile duct stones are among the most common conditions encountered by endoscopists. Therefore, it is well researched; however, some items, such as indications for endoscopic papillary balloon dilatation (EPBD), safety of EPBD and endoscopic sphincterotomy in patients receiving dual antiplatelet therapy or direct oral anticoagulant, selection strategy for retrieval balloons and baskets, lack adequate evidence. Therefore, the guidelines have been updated with new research, while others remain unchanged due to weak evidence. In this review, we comprehensively summarize the standard methods in guidelines and new findings from recent studies on papillary dilation, stone retrieval devices, difficult-to-treat cases, troubleshooting during the procedure, and complicated cases of cholangitis, cholecystolithiasis, or distal biliary stricture.

Outcomes of balloon vs basket catheter for clearance of choledocholithiasis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background and study aims  Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is the mainstay for treatment of choledocholithiasis. It is unclear whether balloon or basket catheters are better for extraction of stones ≤ 10 mm in size. We performed a meta-analysis of studies comparing rates of complete stone extraction and adverse events after ERCP using balloon vs basket catheters for bile duct stones ≤ 10 mm in size. Methods  Cochrane database, PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase were searched from inception to October 2021. Randomized control trials comparing outcomes of balloon vs basket catheter were included. Data extraction of articles was carried out by two authors using predefined inclusion criteria. Metanalysis was carried out using the Revman 5.4.1. software using a random-effects model. Results  Three studies with a total of 508 patients were included in the final analysis. For common bile duct stones ≤ 10 mm, balloon catheters had higher complete stone clearance rates than basket catheters (relative risk 1.1, confidence interval 1.03, 1.18, P  = 0.006). Heterogeneity among studies was low (Tau ²  = 0.0; P  = 0.47, I ²  = 0 %). There was no difference in the rate of complications. Conclusions  Meta-analysis of three studies indicates that balloon catheters have a higher success rate compared to basket catheters for complete stone extraction for choledocholithiasis ≤ 10 mm with no significant difference in the rate of complications.

A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Basket or Balloon Catheter for the Retrieval of Choledocholithiasis

Choledocholithiasis means the presence of gallstone inside the common bile duct (CBD). Removing the bile duct stones can be done surgically using endoscopic catheters. In this study, we aim to assess the safety and efficacy of basket catheters compared to balloon catheters at bile duct stone clearance. We searched four databases for clinical trial and cohort studies that compare basket catheter and balloon catheter in bile duct stone extraction. We extracted data from the included studies. These data were pooled as mean difference (MD) or risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) using Review Manager software (version 5.3) and OpenMetaAnalyst software for zero-event outcomes. In a total of 728 patients, we find that the balloon catheter was better than the basket catheter regarding incomplete bile duct stone clearance (RR = 0.91, 95% CI [0.85, 0.98], P = 0.01). Regarding the number of the extracted stones by both catchers, the analysis favored the balloon catheter over the basket for clearance when less than four stones (RR = 0.91, 95% CI [0.85, 0.99], P = 0.02) but no significant difference for more than four stones (RR = 0.77, 95% CI [0.48, 1.24], P = 0.29). There was no significant difference between the two groups. The analysis revealed that the balloon catheter is better than the basket catheter for choledocholithiasis regarding the complete clearance of the stone. However, there was no significant difference regarding the safety outcome.