Large-diameter balloon dilation after endoscopic sphincterotomy for removal of difficult bile duct stones

Factors Influencing Performance of Cholangioscopy-Guided Lithotripsy Including Available Different Technologies: A Prospective Multicenter Study with 94 Patients

BACKGROUND

Peroral cholangioscopy (POC)-guided lithotripsy is an effective treatment for difficult biliary stones. A clear definition of factors associated with the efficacy of POC-guided lithotripsy in one session and the performance of electrohydraulic lithotripsy (EHL) and laser lithotripsy (LL) have not clearly emerged.

METHODS

This was a non-randomized prospective multicenter study of all consecutive patients who underwent POC lithotripsy (using EHL and/or LL) for difficult biliary stones. The primary endpoint of the study was the number of sessions needed to achieve complete ductal clearance and the factors associated with this outcome. Secondary endpoints included the evaluated efficacies of LL and EHL.

RESULTS

Ninety-four patients underwent 113 procedures of EHL or LL. Complete ductal clearance was obtained in 93/94 patients (98.94%). In total, 80/94 patients (85.11%) achieved stone clearance in a single session. In the multivariate analysis, stone size was independently associated with the need for multiple sessions to achieve complete ductal clearance (odds ratio = 1.146, 95% confidence interval: 1.055-1.244; p = 0.001). Using ROC curves and the Youden index, 22 mm was found to be the optimal cutoff for stone size (95% confidence interval: 15.71-28.28; p < 0.001). The majority of the patients (62.8%) underwent LL in the first session. Six patients failed the first session with EHL after using two probes and therefore were crossed over to LL, obtaining ductal clearance in a single additional session with a single LL fiber. EHL was significantly associated with a larger number of probes (2.0 vs. 1.02) to achieve ductal clearance (p < 0.01). The mean procedural time was significantly longer for EHL than for LL [72.1 (SD 16.3 min) versus 51.1 (SD 10.5 min)] (p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

POC is highly effective for difficult biliary stones. Most patients achieved complete ductal clearance in one session, which was significantly more likely for stones < 22 mm. EHL was significantly associated with the need for more probes and a longer procedural time to achieve ductal clearance.

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.

Choledocholithiasis characteristics with periampullary diverticulum and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography procedures: Comparison between two centers from Lanzhou and Kyoto

BACKGROUND

Most of study regarding periampullary diverticulum (PAD) impact on endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) therapy for choledocholithiasis based on data from one endoscopy center and lacked to compare the clinical characteristic of choledocholithiasis with PAD from different geographical patients.

AIM

To compare the choledocholithiasis clinical characteristics between two regional endoscopy centers and analyze impacts of clinical characteristics on ERCP methods for choledocholithiasis patients with PAD.

METHODS

Patients seen in two endoscopy centers (The First Hospital of Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, Gansu Province, China, and Kyoto Second Red Cross Hospital, Kyoto, Japan) underwent ERCP treatment for the first time between January 2012 and December 2017. The characteristics of choledocholithiasis with PAD were compared between the two centers, and their ERCP procedures and therapeutic outcomes were analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 829 out of 3608 patients in the Lanzhou center and 241 out of 1198 in the Kyoto center had choledocholithiasis with PAD. Lots of clinical characteristics were significantly different between the two centers. The common bile duct (CBD) diameter was wider, choledocholithiasis size was lager and multiple CBD stones were more in the Lanzhou center patients than those in the Kyoto center patients (14.8 ± 5.2 mm vs 11.6 ± 4.2 mm, 12.2 ± 6.5 mm vs 8.2 ± 5.3 mm, 45.3% vs 20.3%, P < 0.001 for all). In addition, concomitant diseases, such as acute cholangitis, gallbladder stones, obstructive jaundice, cholecystectomy, and acute pancreatitis, were significantly different between the two centers (P = 0.03 to < 0.001). In the Lanzhou center, CBD diameter and choledocholithiasis size were lower, and multiple CBD stones and acute cholangitis were less in non-PAD patients than those in PAD patients (13.4 ± 5.1 mm vs 14.8 ± 5.2 mm, 10.3 ± 5.4 mm vs 12.2 ± 6.5, 39% vs 45.3%, 13.9% vs 18.5%, P = 0.002 to < 0.001). But all these characteristics were not significantly different in the Kyoto center. The proportions of endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST), endoscopic balloon dilatation (EPBD), and EST+EPBD were 50.5%, 1.7%, and 42.5% in the Lanzhou center and 90.0%, 0.0%, and 0.4% in the Kyoto center, respectively. However, the overall post-ERCP complication rate was not significantly different between the two centers (8.9% in the Lanzhou and 5.8% in the Kyoto. P = 0.12). In the Lanzhou center, the difficulty rate in removing CBD stones in PAD was higher than in non-PAD group (35.3% vs 26.0%, P < 0.001). But the rate was no significant difference between the two groups in Kyoto center. The residual rates of choledocholithiasis were not significantly different between the two groups in both centers. Post-ERCP complications occurred in 8.9% of the PAD patients and 8.1% of the non-PAD patients in the Lanzhou Center, and it occurred in 5.8% in PAD patients and 10.0% in non-PAD patients in the Kyoto center, all P > 0.05.

CONCLUSION

Many clinical characteristics of choledocholithiasis patients with PAD were significantly different between the Lanzhou and Kyoto centers. The patients had larger and multiple stones, wider CBD diameter, and more possibility of acute cholangitis and obstructive jaundice in the Lanzhou center than those in the Kyoto center. The ERCP procedures to manage native duodenal papilla were different depending on the different clinical characteristics while the overall post-ERCP complications were not significantly different between the two centers. The stone residual rate and post-ERCP complications were not significantly different between choledocholithiasis patients with PAD and without PAD in each center.

Controversies in ERCP: Technical aspects

The aim of the series of papers on controversies of biliopancreatic drainage procedures is to discuss pros and cons of the varying clinical practices and techniques in ERCP and EUS for drainage of biliary and pancreatic ducts. While the first part focuses on indications, clinical and imaging prerequisites prior to ERCP, sedation options, post-ERCP pancreatitis prophylaxis, and other related technical topics, the second part discusses specific procedural ERCP techniques including precut techniques and their timing as well as management algorithms. In addition, reviews on controversies in EUS-guided bile duct and pancreatic drainage procedures are under preparation.

Safety and efficacy of laparoscopic common bile duct exploration for the patients with difficult biliary stones: 8 years of experiences at a single institution and literature review

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) has gained wide popularity for the treatment of choledocholithiasis. However, it remains unclear whether LCBDE is a better alternative option for the patients with difficult biliary stones. Thus, the aim of the present study was to explore the safety and efficacy of LCBDE for these patients by retrospectively analyzing our data and combing with literature review.

METHODS

Between September 2011 and February 2019, 1064 consecutive patients who underwent LCBDE at Shanghai Tenth People's Hospital were reviewed. The clinical data of patients with difficult biliary stones were selected and retrospectively analyzed.

RESULTS

Of these patients, 334 cases were confirmed with difficult biliary stones, and the overall complete stone clearance rate was 98.8% (330/334). 34 cases (10.2%) were performed with laser lithotripsy. A total of 296 patients (88.6%) underwent primary closure of common bile duct, and T-tube drainage was indwelled in 38 patients (11.4%). No bile duct injury, bleeding, perforation and surgery-related deaths were observed. The overall morbidity rate was 6.6%. 16 cases (4.8%) occurred in bile leakage with primary closure procedure, and all of them were managed successfully with conservative therapy. The median follow-up period was 9 months with stone recurrence occurring in 9 patients (2.7%). There was no evidence of bile duct stricture in all cases.

CONCLUSIONS

The current study suggests that LCBED is a considerable safe and effective option for the patients with difficult biliary stones. A randomized clinical trial is needed to further evaluate the benefit of LCBDE in this subgroup.

Comparison of the Efficacy and Safety of Three Endoscopic Methods to Manage Large Common Bile Duct Stones: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

Background: The optimal choice of endoscopic method between endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST), endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation (EPLBD), and EST plus EPLBD (endoscopic sphincterotomy and large balloon dilation [ESLBD]) for patients with large common bile duct stones is unclear. Methods: We systematically searched MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and ClinicalTrials.gov from August 1, 1990 to December 1, 2019. Randomized clinical trials comparing at least two of the following methods EST, ESLBD, or EPLBD were included in this study. The primary outcomes were the overall success rate and initial success rate of common bile duct stone removal. Results: We identified 13 trials comprising 1990 patients. Regarding the overall success rate and initial success rate, EPLBD had the highest probability of being the most successful (surface under the cumulative ranking curve [SUCRA] = 82.8% and 52.9%, respectively) and the lowest probability of bleeding (53.8%). ESLBD had the highest probability (SUCRA) of having the lowest morbidity (88.8%), requiring mechanical lithotripsy (54.9%), perforation (68%), and the lowest mortality (89.3%). EST had the least probability of postendoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis and cholangitis (SUCRA: 66.4% and 62.3%, respectively). Conclusions: EPLBD was most successful, and ESLBD was safest for large common bile duct stones. Postendoscopic pancreatitis after EST was less common than that after EPLBD and ESLBD. However, more high-quality trials are required.

Balloons larger than 15 mm can increase the risk of adverse events following endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Although endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation (EPLBD) has been widely used to facilitate the removal of difficult common bile duct stones, however, the outcomes have not yet been investigated in terms of the diameter of the balloon used. We aimed to compare the clinical outcomes between EPLBD using smaller (12-15 mm, S-EPLBD) and larger balloons (> 15 mm, L-EPLBD).

METHODS

Six hundred seventy-two patients who underwent EPLBD with or without endoscopic sphincterotomy for common bile duct stone removal were enrolled from May 2004 to August 2014 at four tertiary referral centers in Korea. The outcomes, including the initial success rate, the success rate without endoscopic mechanical lithotripsy, the overall success rate, and adverse events between S-EPLBD and L-EPLBD groups, were retrospectively compared.

RESULTS

The initial success rate, the success rate without mechanical lithotripsy, the overall success rate, and the overall adverse events were not significantly different between the two groups. The rate of severe-to-fatal adverse events was higher in the L-EPBLD group than in the S-EPLBD group (1.6% vs 0.0%, 0.020). One case of severe bleeding and two cases of fatal perforation occurred only in the L-EPLBD group. In the multivariate analysis, the use of a > 15-mm balloon was the only significant risk factor for severe-to-fatal adverse events (>0.005, 23.8 [adjusted odds ratio], 2.6-214.4 [95% confidence interval]).

CONCLUSIONS

L-EPLBD is significantly related to severe-to-fatal adverse events compared with S-EPLBD for common bile duct stone removal.

Risks of Postendoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography Pancreatitis and Hyperamylasemia After Endoscopic Papillary Balloon Dilation: A Retrospective Analysis

It is currently unclear whether endoscopic papillary balloon dilation (EPBD) is associated with increased severe postendoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis (PEP)-related morbidity owing to conflicting reports. This study aimed to investigate whether EPBD increases the risk of PEP and hyperamylasemia. Clinical data of patients with choledocholithiasis, treated at the Second Affiliated Hospital of Harbin Medical University from January 2015 to December 2016 were analyzed. Patients were divided into the EPBD group and endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST)+EPBD group, and their characteristics and PEP and hyperamylasemia incidences were compared. Incidences related to dilated balloon diameter were also analyzed. There were no significant differences in patient characteristics and the incidences of PEP (2.6% vs. 0%; P=0.257) and hyperamylasemia (4.4% vs. 5.6%; P=0.954) between the 2 groups. Results were similar even with different balloon dilatations. EPBD without endoscopic sphincterotomy did not increase the risk of PEP and hyperamylasemia. It is a safe option for choledocholithiasis patients.

How to Avoid Post-Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography Pancreatitis

Pancreatitis remains the most common and potentially devastating complication of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis. Recent advances in prophylaxis have improved but not eliminated this problem, underscoring the importance of ongoing research toward this goal. This review aims to provide an evidence-based approach to post-ERCP pancreatitis prevention through patient selection, risk stratification, procedural technique, and multimodality prophylaxis, and discusses ongoing and future research initiatives in this important area.

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.

Endoscopic Management of Difficult Bile Duct Stones

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

In 10-15% of the cases, conventional methods for removing bile duct stones by ERCP/balloon-basket extraction fail. The purpose of this review is to describe endoscopic techniques in managing these "difficult bile duct stones."

RECENT FINDINGS

Endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation with balloon extraction ± mechanical lithotripsy is the initial approach used to retrieve large bile duct stones. With advent of digital cholangioscopy, electrohydraulic and laser lithotripsy are gaining popularity. Enteroscopy-assisted or laparoscopic-assisted approaches can be used for those with gastric bypass anatomy. Difficulties in removing bile duct stones can be related to stone-related factors such as the size and location of the stone or to altered anatomy such as stricture in the bile duct or Roux-en-Y anatomy. Several endoscopy approaches and techniques have described in the recent past that have greatly enhanced our ability to remove these "difficult" bile duct stones.

Complex biliary stones management: cholangioscopy versus papillary large balloon dilation - a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

 Endoscopic removal of biliary stones has high success rates, ranging between 85 % to 95 %. Nevertheless, some stones may be challenging and different endoscopic methods have evolved. Papillary large balloon dilation after sphincterotomy is a widely used technique with success rates ranging from 68 to 90 % for stones larger than 15 mm. Cholangioscopy allows performing lithotripsy under direct biliary visualization, either by laser or electrohydraulic waves, which have similar success rate (80 % - 90 %). However, there is no study comparing these 2 techniques.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

 From April 2014 to June 2016, 100 patients were enrolled and randomized in 2 groups, using a non-inferiority hypothesis: cholangioscopy + electrohydraulic lithotripsy (group 1) and endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation (group 2). The main outcome was complete stone removal. Adverse events were documented. Mechanical lithotripsy was not performed. Failure cases had a second session with crossover of the methods.

RESULTS

 The mean age was 56 years. 74 (75.5 %) patients were female. The initial overall complete stone removal rate was 74.5 % (77.1 % in group 1 and 72 % in group 2, P  > 0.05). After second session the overall success rate achieved 90.1 %. Procedure time was significantly lower in group 2, - 25.2 min (CI95 % - 12.48 to - 37.91). There were no significant differences regarding technical success rate, radiologic exposure and adverse events.

CONCLUSION

 Single-operator cholangioscopy-guided lithotripsy and papillary large balloon dilation are effective and safe approaches for removing complex biliary stones.

Nasobiliary drainage can reduce the incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis after papillary large balloon dilation plus endoscopic biliary sphincterotomy: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis can be reduced following endoscopic papillary balloon dilation with the placement of an endoscopic nasobiliary drainage (ENBD) catheter. The aim of this study was to determine whether the placement of an ENBD reduces the risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis following endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation together with endoscopic biliary sphincterotomy.

METHODS

A total of 160 patients with bile duct stones were randomly assigned (1:1) to an ENBD group or no-ENBD group. The primary outcome of this study was the incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis. The secondary outcome was the incidence of post-ERCP hyperamylasemia.

RESULTS

In total, 160 patients were randomized, and 155 were found to be eligible for the analysis. The two groups were similar regarding clinical and demographic factors as well as patient- and procedure-related risk factors for post-ERCP pancreatitis. Post-ERCP pancreatitis developed in 9 patients, that is, 8/77 (10.4%) of the control group and 1/78 (1.28%) of the ENBD group (p = .018; per protocol analysis). Intention to treat analysis also revealed that ENBD reduced the rate of post-ERCP pancreatitis (8/80 (10%) in the control group vs. 1/80 (1.25%) the ENBD group (p = .034)). Multivariate regression analysis identified not undergoing ENBD as an independent risk factor for post-ERCP pancreatitis (ENBD compared with no-ENBD: OR 0.087, 95% CI 0.011-0.734; p = .025).

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrated that placement of an ENBD was effective and safe for the prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis in patients undergoing endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation together with endoscopic biliary sphincterotomy.

Reducing the risk of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis

Pancreatitis is the most common and potentially devastating complication of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), resulting in significant morbidity, occasional mortality, and increased health-care expenditure. Accordingly, the prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) remains a major clinical and research priority. Strategies to reduce the incidence of PEP include thoughtful patient selection, appropriate risk-stratification, sound procedural technique, prophylactic pancreatic stent placement, and pharmacoprevention. Despite advances in all these areas, however, the incidence of PEP remains as high as 15% in high-risk cases. Thus, additional research towards the goal of eliminating PEP is necessary. Herein is an evidence-based review of strategies to prevent pancreatitis after ERCP, focusing on recent important developments in the field.

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.

Preventing Postendoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography Pancreatitis

Postendoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis is a common and potentially devastating complication of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Advances in risk-stratification, patient selection, procedure technique, and prophylactic interventions have substantially improved the ability to prevent this complication. This article presents the evidence-based approaches to preventing postendoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis and discusses timely research questions in this important area.

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.

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.

Twenty-Second versus Sixty-Second Dilation Duration in Endoscopic Papillary Balloon Dilation for the Treatment of Small Common Bile Duct Stones: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Multicenter Trial

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Endoscopic papillary balloon dilation (EPBD) has been advocated as an alternative therapy to endoscopic sphincterotomy for the treatment of common bile duct (CBD) stones. However, there is no established consensus on the optimal balloon dilation duration (BDD). We prospectively evaluated the efficacy and post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) complications between the 20- and 60-second EPBD groups.

METHODS

A total of 228 patients with small CBD stones (≤12 mm) were randomly assigned to undergo EPBD with a 20- or 60-second duration at six institutions. We evaluated baseline patient characteristics, endoscopic data, clinical outcomes, and procedure-related complications. In addition, we analyzed risk factors for postprocedural pancreatitis.

RESULTS

CBD stones were removed successfully in 107 of 109 patients (98.1%) in the 20-second group and in 112 of 119 patients (94.1%) in the 60-second group (p=0.146). Post-ERCP pancreatitis developed in seven patients (6.4%) in the 20-second group and nine patients (7.5%) in the 60-second group (p=0.408). In multivariate analysis, contrast dye injection into the pancreatic duct is a significant risk factor for post-EPBD pancreatitis.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the data showing that there were no significant differences in safety and efficacy between the two BDD groups, 20 seconds of BDD may be adequate for treatment of small CBD stones with EPBD.

Superiority of 10-mm-wide balloon over 8-mm-wide balloon in papillary dilation for bile duct stones: A matched cohort study

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Endoscopic papillary balloon dilation (EPBD) is a possible alternative to endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) for common bile duct (CBD) stones. To date, 10- and 8-mm EPBD have not been fully compared.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients who underwent EPBD for CBD stones at two Japanese tertiary care centers between May 1994 and January 2014 were identified. Matched pairs with 10- and 8-mm EPBD were generated. Short- and long-term outcomes were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

A total of 869 patients were identified (61 and 808 patients for 10- and 8-mm EPBD, respectively), and 61 well-balanced pairs were generated. The rate of complete stone removal within a single session was higher in the 10-mm EPBD group than in the 8-mm EPBD group (69% vs. 44%, P < 0.001), and use of lithotripsy was less frequent in the 10-mm EPBD group (23% vs. 56%, P < 0.001). The rates of post-ERCP pancreatitis were similar between the 10- and 8-mm EPBD groups (11% vs. 8%). Cumulative biliary complication-free rates were not statistically different between the two groups: 88% [95% confidence interval (CI): 79-97%] and 94% (95% CI: 88-100%) at 1 year and 69% (95% CI: 56-85%) and 80% (95% CI: 69-93%) at 2 years in the 10- and 8-mm EPBD groups, respectively. In the 10-mm EPBD group, ascending cholangitis was not observed, and pneumobilia was found in 5% of cases during the follow-up period.

CONCLUSIONS

EPBD using a 10-mm balloon for CBD stones is safe and more effective than 8-mm EPBD. The sphincter function is highly preserved after 10-mm EPBD.

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP)-related adverse events: post-ERCP pancreatitis

Post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis (PEP) is the most common complication of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), and not uncommonly is the reason behind ERCP-related lawsuits. Patients at high risk for PEP include young women with abdominal pain, normal liver tests, and unremarkable imaging. Procedure-related factors include traumatic and persistent cannulation attempts, multiple injections of the pancreatic duct, pancreatic sphincterotomy, and, possibly, use of precut sphincterotomy. Aggressive hydration, use of rectal indomethacin, and prophylactic pancreatic stenting can diminish the risk (and likely severity) of PEP. Though hugely beneficial, these measures do not supersede careful patient selection and technique.

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.

Factors significantly contributing to a failed conventional endoscopic stone clearance in patients with "difficult" choledecholithiasis: a single-center experience

The objective of this study is to retrospectively evaluate factors significantly contributing to a failed stone extraction (SE) in patients with difficult to extract bile duct stones (BDS). Patients and Methods. During a 10-year period 1390 patients with BDS underwent successfully endoscopic sphincterotomy. Endoscopic SE was graded as easy; relatively easy; difficult; and failed. Difficult SE was encountered in 221 patients while failed SE was encountered in 205. A retrospective analysis of the criteria governing the difficulty of endoscopic SE following the index endoscopic intervention was performed to evaluate their significance in determining failure of complete SE among patients with difficult to extract bile duct stones. Results. Age ≥ 85 years, periampullary diverticula, multiple CBD stones (>4), and diameter of CBD stones (≥15 mm) were all significant contributing factors to a failed SE in univariate statistical tests. In the definitive multivariate analysis age, multiple stones and diameter of stones were found to be the significant, independent contributors. Conclusion. Failed conventional endoscopic stone clearance in patients with difficult to extract BDS is more likely to occur in overage patients, in patients with multiple CBD stones >4, and in patients with CBD stone(s) diameter ≥15 mm.

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.

Post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis caused by papillary large-balloon dilation of incidental intrapapillary fistula in Roux-en-Y patients: lesson from a case

Endoscopic papillary large-balloon dilation (EPLBD) has been popular worldwide for difficult stones. At the primary stage, EPLBD is done immediately after endoscopic sphincterotomy (ES) or after previous ES. Recently, several endoscopists have reported the feasibility and safety of EPLBD without ES and post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis (PEP) as adverse events. Herein, we encountered a case of PEP in which EPLBD was carried out through a spontaneous fistula in the papillary roof, although there was no manipulation of the pancreatic duct. We learned a lesson from the present case in which possible PEP might occur during the procedure of EPLBD without ES.

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.

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.

Preventing pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography

Post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis is a common and potentially devastating complication of ERCP. Advances in risk stratification, patient selection, procedure technique, and prophylactic interventions have substantially improved the endoscopists' ability to prevent this complication. This article presents the evidence-based approaches to preventing post-ERCP pancreatitis and suggests timely research questions in this important area.

Recent advances in endoscopic management of difficult bile duct stones

Endoscopic treatment is now recognized worldwide as the first-line treatment for bile duct stones. Endoscopic sphincterotomy combined with basket and/or balloon catheter is generally carried out for stone extraction. However, some stones are refractory to treatment under certain circumstances, necessitating additional/other therapeutic modalities. Large bile duct stones are typically treated by mechanical lithotripsy. However, if this fails, laser or electrohydraulic lithotripsy (EHL) is carried out under the guidance of conventional mother-baby cholangioscopy. More recently, direct cholangioscopy using an ultrathin gastroscope and the newly developed single-use cholangioscope system - the SpyGlass direct visualization system - are also used. In addition, extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy has also been used for stone fragmentation. Such fragmentation techniques are effective in cases with impacted stones, including Mirizzi syndrome. Most recently, endoscopic papillary large balloon dilationhas been introduced as an easy and effective technique for treating large and multiple stones. In cases of altered anatomy, it is often difficult to reach the papilla; in such cases, a percutaneous transhepatic approach, such as EHL or laser lithotripsy under percutaneous transhepatic cholangioscopy, can be a treatment option. Moreover, enteroscopy has recently been used to reach the papilla. Furthermore, an endoscopic ultrasound-guided procedure has been attempted most recently. In elderly patients and those with very poor general condition, biliary stenting only is sometimes carried out with or without giving subsequent dissolution agents.

Endoscopic management of bile duct stones: residual bile duct stones after surgery, cholangitis, and "difficult stones"

Endoscopic treatment has become, according to the latest recommendations, the standard treatment for common bile duct stones (CBDS), although in certain situations, surgical clearance of the common duct at the time of laparoscopic cholecystectomy is still considered a possible alternative. The purpose of this article is not to compare endoscopic with surgical treatment of CBDS, but to describe the various techniques of endoscopic treatment, detailing their preferential indications and the various treatment options that must sometimes be considered when faced with "difficult calculi" of the CBD. The different techniques of lithotripsy and the role of biliary drainage with plastic or metallic stents will be detailed as well as papillary balloon dilatation and particularly the technique of sphincterotomy with macrodilatation of the sphincter of Oddi (SMSO), a recently described approach that has changed the strategy for endoscopic management of CBDS. Finally, the overall strategy for endoscopic management of CBDS, with description of different techniques, will be exposed.

Factors predictive of adverse events following endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation: results from a multicenter series

BACKGROUND

Lack of established guidelines for endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation (EPLBD) may be a reason for aversion of its use in removal of large common bile duct (CBD) stones.

AIMS

We sought to identify factors predictive of adverse events (AEs) following EPLBD.

METHODS

This multicenter retrospective study investigated 946 consecutive patients who underwent attempted removal of CBD stones ≥10 mm in size using EPLBD (balloon size 12-20 mm) with or without endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) at 12 academic medical centers in Korea and Japan.

RESULTS

Ninety-five (10.0 %) patients exhibited AEs including bleeding in 56, pancreatitis in 24, perforation in nine, and cholangitis in six; 90 (94.7 %) of these were classified as mild or moderate in severity. There were four deaths, three as a result of perforation and one due to delayed massive bleeding. Causative factors identified in fatal cases were full-EST and continued balloon inflation despite a persistent waist seen fluoroscopically. Multivariate analyses showed that cirrhosis (OR 8.03, p = 0.003), length of EST (full-EST: OR 6.22, p < 0.001) and stone size (≥16 mm: OR 4.00, p < 0.001) were associated with increased bleeding, and distal CBD stricture (OR 17.08, p < 0.001) was an independent predictor for perforation. On the other hand, balloon size was associated with deceased pancreatitis (≥14 mm: OR 0.27, p = 0.015).

CONCLUSIONS

EPLBD appears to be a safe and effective therapeutic approach for retrieval of large stones in patients without distal CBD strictures and when performed without full-EST.

Endoscopic papillary large-balloon dilation following limited sphincterotomy for the removal of refractory bile duct stones: experience of 169 cases in a single Chinese center

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of endoscopic papillary large-balloon dilation (EPLBD) combined with limited endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) for the removal of large biliary duct stones (≥10 mm).

METHODS

Data of patients who underwent an attempted removal of large bile duct stones by limited EST followed by EPLBD (≥12 mm in diameter) from April 2006 to October 2011 in our center were reviewed. Clinical characteristics, endoscopic methods and outcomes of the patients were collected and analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 169 patients with a mean age of 69.3 years (range 19-97 years) underwent 171 procedures. Median stone size and balloon diameter was 15 mm and 13 mm, respectively. Complete stone removal in a single session was achieved in 163 procedures (95.3%) with mechanical lithotripsy (ML) used in 66 (38.6%). Patients with a larger stone size required more frequent use of ML with a comparable success rate (P < 0.01). There were no significant differences between patients with and without periampullary diverticula in stone clearance (97.3% vs 93.8%), ML requirement (36.5% vs 40.2%) and complications (2.7% vs 6.2%) (all P > 0.05). Seven patients had eight procedure-related complications including moderate or mild bleeding (n = 4), minor perforation (n = 1), mild pancreatitis (n = 2) and cholangitis (n = 1).

CONCLUSION

EPLBD following limited EST is an effective and safe approach for the removal of large biliary duct stones, especially for those refractory cases.

Randomized trial of endoscopic sphincterotomy with balloon dilation versus endoscopic sphincterotomy alone for removal of bile duct stones

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Limited endoscopic sphincterotomy with large balloon dilation (ESBD) is an alternative to endoscopic sphincterotomy (ES) for removing bile duct stones, but it is not clear which procedure is most effective. We compared the 2 techniques in removal of bile duct stones.

METHODS

Between September 2005 and September 2011, 156 consecutive patients with suspected of having, or known to have, common bile duct stones were randomly assigned to groups that underwent ES or ESBD. Patients in the ESBD group underwent limited sphincterotomy (up to half of the sphincter) followed by balloon dilation to the size of the common bile duct or 15 mm, and patients in the ES group underwent complete sphincterotomy alone. Stones were then removed using standard techniques. The primary outcome was percentage of stones cleared, and secondary outcomes included procedural time, method of stone extraction, number of procedures required for stone clearance, morbidities and mortality within 30 days, and direct cost.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference between groups in percentage of stones cleared (ES vs ESBD: 88.5% vs 89.0%). More patients in the ES group (46.2%) than the ESBD group (28.8%) required mechanical lithotripsy (P = .028), particularly for stones ≥15 mm (90.9% vs 58.1%; P = .002). Morbidities developed in 10.3% of patients in the ES group and 6.8% of patients in the ESBD group (P = .46). The cost of the hospitalization was also significantly lower in the ESBD group (P = .034).

CONCLUSIONS

ESBD and ES clear bile stones with equal efficacy. However, ESBD reduces the need for mechanical lithotripsy and is less expensive; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00164853.

Update on biliary and pancreatic sphincterotomy

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To summarize the indications, success rates and complications associated with endoscopic sphincterotomy and endoscopic balloon dilation (EBD).

RECENT FINDINGS

Pancreatic and/or biliary sphincterotomies are essential components of most current therapeutic endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). A current large body of evidence has established biliary sphincterotomy as effective in extraction of bile duct stones. The most common complications of biliary sphincterotomy are post-ERCP pancreatitis, as well as acute or delayed hemorrhage, the risks for which can be stratified according to well described patient and procedure related factors. Evidence is accumulating that pancreatic sphincterotomy is useful in at least some settings for treatment of sphincter of Oddi dysfunction, chronic pancreatitis, and pancreas divisum. EBD provides an adjunct or an alternative to biliary sphincterotomy for extraction of stones from the bile duct when routine biliary sphincterotomy is inadequate or risk excessive.

SUMMARY

Sphincterotomy and EBD are useful in managing a variety of pancreatobiliary conditions. Attention to risks of these procedures is essential for their efficacy and safety.

Endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation: guidelines for pursuing zero mortality

Since endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation (EPLBD) is used to treat benign disease and as a substitute for conventional methods, such as endoscopic sphincterotomy plus endoscopic mechanical lithotripsy, we should aim for zero mortality. This review defines EPLBD and suggests guidelines for its use based on a review of published articles and our large-scale multicenter retrospective review.

Comparison of endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation and endoscopic sphincterotomy for retrieval of choledocholithiasis: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) is the most frequently used technique for removal of stones from the bile duct. In recent years, endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation (EPLBD) has been shown to be a safe and effective technique for the removal of large or difficult common bile duct stones. However, comparison of EPLBD and EST for effectiveness in bile duct stone removal has given inconsistent results. The present meta-analysis was carried out to compare the effect of EPLBD and EST in retrieval of choledocholithiasis.

METHODS

A literature search was performed using Medline, PubMed, EMBase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) for relevant articles published in English. A meta-analysis was performed on the retrieved studies.

RESULTS

Seven randomized controlled trials and 790 patients were involved. EPLBD compared with EST resulted in similar outcomes for overall successful clearance rates of bile duct stones (97.35 vs. 96.35%, OR 1.28, 95% CI 0.58-2.82, P = 0.54), stone clearance in the first ERCP session (87.87 vs. 84.15%, OR 1.31, 95% CI 0.81-2.11, P = 0.21) and removal of large sized stones (OR 1.08, 95% CI 0.21-5.64, P = 0.49). EPLBD performed with either a short or a long ballooning time did not increase the bile duct stone clearance rate. EPLBD decreased overall usage of mechanical lithotripsy in the bile duct stone removal process (OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.30-0.86, P = 0.01). However, no significant difference was found between EPLBD and EST in the use of mechanical lithotripsy for the removal of large sized stones (OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.34-1.28, P = 0.22). Compared with EST, EPLBD did not show a short ERCP duration (WMD -0.75, 95% CI -1.57 to 0.08, P = 0.08). EPLBD was associated with fewer overall complications than EST (5.8 vs. 13.1%, OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.24-0.68, P = 0.0007). Hemorrhage occurred less frequently with EPLBD than with EST (OR 0.15, 95% CI 0.04-0.50, P = 0.002). There was no significant difference in post-ERCP pancreatitis, perforation and cholangitis.

CONCLUSIONS

EPLBD is an effective and safe method for the removal of large or difficult common bile stones. EPLBD should be considered as an alternative to EST for patients in whom EST could not be routinely performed. Based on EPLBD causing fewer cases of hemorrhaging, EPLBD is also recommended for removal of large or difficult common bile duct stones in patients with an underlying coagulopathy or need for anticoagulation following ERCP. The long-term prognosis of EPLBD need to be further investigated.

Endoscopic extraction of large common bile duct stones: A review article

Since therapeutic endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography replaced surgery as the first approach in cases of choledocolithiasis, a plethora of endoscopic techniques and devices appeared in order to facilitate rapid, safe and effective bile duct stones extraction. Nowadays, endoscopic sphincterotomy combined with balloon catheters and/or baskets is the routine endoscopic technique for stone extraction in the great majority of patients. Large common bile duct stones are treated conventionally with mechanical lithotripsy, while the most serious complication of the procedure is “basket and stone impaction” that is predominately resolved surgically. In cases of difficult, impacted, multiple or intrahepatic stones, more sophisticated procedures have been used. Electrohydraulic lithotripsy and laser lithotripsy are performed using conventional mother-baby scope systems, ultra-thin cholangioscopes, thin endoscopes and ultimately using the novel single use, single operator SpyGlass Direct Visualization System, in order to deliver intracorporeal shock wave energy to fragment the targeted stone, with very good outcomes. Recently, large balloon dilation after endoscopic sphincterotomy confirmed its effectiveness in the extraction of large stones in a plethora of trials. When compared with mechanical lithotripsy or with balloon dilation alone, it proved to be superior. Moreover, dilation is an ideal alternative in cases of altered anatomy where access to the papilla is problematic. Endoscopic sphincterotomy followed by large balloon dilation represents the onset of a new era in large bile duct stone extraction and the management of “impaction” because it seems that is an effective, inexpensive, less traumatic, safe and easy method that does not require sophisticated apparatus and can be performed widely by skillful endoscopists. When complete extraction of large stones is unsuccessful, the drainage of the common bile duct is mandatory either for bridging to the final therapy or as a curative therapy for very elderly patients with short life expectancy. Placing of more than one plastic endoprostheses is better while the administration of Ursodiol is ineffective. The great majority of patients with large stones can be treated endoscopically. In cases of unsuccessful stone extraction using balloons, baskets, mechanical lithotripsy, electrohydraulic or laser lithotripsy and large balloon dilation, the patient should be referred for extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy or a percutaneous approach and finally surgery.

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.