Endoscopic papillary balloon dilatation versus endoscopic sphincterotomy in the treatment for choledocholithiasis: a meta-analysis

Feasibility and safety of intraoperative bile duct clearance by antegrade transcystic balloon sphincteroplasty: A prospective observational pilot study

BACKGROUND

Concomitant cholecystolithiasis and choledocholithiasis are common. Standard treatments are endoscopic retrograde cholangiography (ERC) followed by cholecystectomy or laparoendoscopic rendezvous. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiography has drawbacks, such as post-ERC pancreatitis or bleeding, and potentially more than one intervention is required to address common bile duct (CBD) stones. Safety and feasibility of an intraoperative antegrade transcystic single-stage approach during cholecystectomy with balloon sphincteroplasty and pushing of stones to the duodenum has not been evaluated prospectively. The aim of this pilot study was to evaluate this procedure regarding safety, feasibility, and stone clearance rate.

METHODS

Prospective single-center intervention study (SUPER Reporting-Guideline). Main inclusion criterion was confirmed choledocholithiasis (stones ≤6 mm) at intraoperative cholangiography. Success of the procedure was defined as CBD stone clearance at intraoperative control cholangiography, absence of symptoms and no elevated cholestasis parameters at 6 weeks follow-up. Simon's two-stage design was used to determine sample size.

RESULTS

From January 2021 to April 2022, a total of 57 patients fulfilled the final inclusion criteria and were included. Mild pancreatitis or cholangitis were present upon admission in 15 (26%) and 15 (26%) patients, respectively. Median number of CBD-stones was 1 (1-6). Median stone diameter was 4 mm (0.1-6 mm). Common bile duct stone clearance was achieved in 54 patients (94%). The main reason for failed CBD clearance was the inability to push the guidewire along the biliary stone into the duodenum. Median intervention time was 28 minutes (14-129 minutes). While there was no postoperative pancreatitis, two patients (3.5%) had asymptomatic hyperlipasemia 4 hours postoperatively.

CONCLUSION

Intraoperative CBD stone clearance by antegrade balloon sphincteroplasty appears to be safe and highly feasible. Its overall superiority to the current standards warrants evaluation by a randomized controlled trial.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic/Care Management, Level V.

Endoscopic Management of Difficult Biliary Stones: An Evergreen Issue

Choledocholithiasis is one of the most common indications for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in daily practice. Although the majority of stones are small and can be easily removed in a single endoscopy session, approximately 10-15% of patients have complex biliary stones, requiring additional procedures for an optimum clinical outcome. A plethora of endoscopic methods is available for the removal of difficult biliary stones, including papillary large balloon dilation, mechanical lithotripsy, and electrohydraulic and laser lithotripsy. In-depth knowledge of these techniques and the emerging literature on them is required to yield the most optimal therapeutic effects. This narrative review aims to describe the definition of difficult bile duct stones based on certain characteristics and streamline their endoscopic retrieval using various modalities to achieve higher clearance rates.

Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for cholelithiasis 2021

The Japanese Society of Gastroenterology first published evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for cholelithiasis in 2010, followed by a revision in 2016. Currently, the revised third edition was published to reflect recent evidence on the diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis of cholelithiasis conforming to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system. Following this revision, the present English version of the guidelines was updated and published herein. The clinical questions (CQ) in the previous version were reviewed and rearranged into three newly divided categories: background questions (BQ) dealing with basic background knowledge, CQ, and future research questions (FRQ), which refer to issues that require further accumulation of evidence. Finally, 52 questions (29 BQs, 19 CQs, and 4 FRQs) were adopted to cover the epidemiology, pathogenesis, diagnosis, treatment, complications, and prognosis. Based on a literature search using MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and Igaku Chuo Zasshi databases for the period between 1983 and August 2019, along with a manual search of new information reported over the past 5 years, the level of evidence was evaluated for each CQ. The strengths of recommendations were determined using the Delphi method by the committee members considering the body of evidence, including benefits and harms, patient preference, and cost-benefit balance. A comprehensive flowchart was prepared for the diagnosis and treatment of gallbladder stones, common bile duct stones, and intrahepatic stones, respectively. The current revised guidelines are expected to be of great assistance to gastroenterologists and general physicians in making decisions on contemporary clinical management for cholelithiasis patients.

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.

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

BACKGROUND AND AIM

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Predictors for stone recurrence after a successful common bile duct surgical exploration for choledocholithiasis

BACKGROUND

Recurrence after common bile duct stone (CBDS) clearance is the major long-term drawback of their management. Its prevalence is significant, and it occurs after all primary therapeutic alternatives. The aim of this study was to determine the predictive factors associated with stone recurrence after surgical common bile duct exploration (CBDE).

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study based on patients undergoing CBDE between 2000 and 2018 was conducted. Uni- and multivariate hierarchical regression analyses were performed to assess the independent predictive factors associated with recurrent CBDS in patients with initially successful surgery.

RESULTS

A total of 365 patients underwent successful surgical procedures. After a median follow-up of 43.2 (IQR 84) months, 31 (8.4%) patients were diagnosed with CBD stone recurrence. The median time to recurrence was 30.3 (IQR 38) months. The only variable associated with CBDS recurrence was preoperative endoscopic sphincterotomy (HR 2.436, 95% CI: 1.031-5.751, P = 0.042)).

CONCLUSION

Patients who undergo preoperative endoscopic sphincterotomy and then cholecystectomy with successful common bile duct clearance may be at increased risk for recurrent stone disease compared to those who go straight to surgery.

Innovation of endoscopic management in difficult common bile duct stone in the era of laparoscopic surgery

Common bile duct (CBD) stone is a common biliary problem, which often requires endoscopic approach as the initial treatment option. Roughly, 7%-12% of the subjects who experience cholecystectomy were subsequently referred to biliary endoscopist for further management. In general, there are three classifications of difficult CBD stone, which are based on the characteristics of the stone (larger than 15 mm, barrel or square-shaped stones, and hard consistency), accessibility to papilla related to anatomical variations, and other clinical conditions or comorbidities of the patients. Currently, endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation (EPLBD) of a previous sphincterotomy and EPLBD combined with limited sphincterotomy performed on the same session is still recommended by the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy as the main approach in difficult CBD stones with history of failed sphincterotomy and balloon and/or basket attempts. If failed extraction is still encountered, mechanical lithotripsy or cholangioscopy-assisted lithotripsy or extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy can be considered. Surgical approach can be considered when stone extraction is still failed or the facilities to perform lithotripsy are not available. To our knowledge, conflicting evidence are still found from previous studies related to the comparison between endoscopic and surgical approaches. The availability of experienced operator and resources needs to be considered in creating individualized treatment strategies for managing difficult biliary stones.

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.

Endoscopic papillary balloon dilatation less than three minutes for biliary stone removal increases the risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis

Objectives

The adequate duration for EPBD was unclear. Therefore, we aimed to investigate the effect of balloon dilatation duration of EPBD on the occurrence of PEP.

Methods

One hundred and ninety-eight patients with common bile duct (CBD) stone treated by EPBD were retrospectively recruited. The dilatation duration was determined according to adequate opening of the biliary orifice without bleeding. The clinical outcomes and complications of EPBD were recorded.

Results

We stratified the patients according to dilatation duration (Group A, <3 minutes; Group B, 3–5 minutes; Group C, ≥5 minutes). The group C patients had a higher proportion of large CBD stones (stones ≥10 mm) (33.3% vs. 26.8% vs. 53.5%, p = 0.01). Patients in group A had a significantly higher PEP rate than patients in group B (13.3 vs. 3.1, p = 0.032). There were no significant differences in perforation and bleeding rate among the three groups. Univariate and multivariate analyses showed that a dilatation duration of <3 minutes, CBD diameter < 10 mm and age ≤ 75 years were independent risk factors of PEP in post-EPBD patients.

Conclusions

In patients receiving EPBD, dilatation duration <3 minutes, lower CBD diameter, and younger age were independent risk factors of PEP.

Prevention of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis using pancreatic stents: A review of efficacy, diameter and length

Although endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is an important procedure for the diagnosis and treatment of pancreaticobiliary diseases, post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) is the most frequent adverse event that can sometimes be fatal. However, prophylactic pancreatic stent (PS) insertion has been performed to prevent PEP in high-risk patients. In some randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses, the efficacy of prophylactic PS insertion has been shown to prevent PEP. In addition, several types of stents have been used to decrease PEP. In this review, we introduce the details of these RCTs and meta-analyses and reveal the specifications for stent placement, for example, the stent diameter and length and the pancreatic region into which the stent should be inserted.

Pancreatic stents to prevent post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) plays a major role in the investigation and treatment of pancreaticobiliary diseases. However, post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) is a severe adverse effect. Prior meta-analyses have shown that prophylactic PS was useful for preventing PEP. However, abstract reports and patients who underwent endoscopic ampullectomy were included in the previous analyses. In addition, two meta-analyses involved non-randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The efficacy of PS for preventing severe PEP was different in each meta-analysis. Therefore, we performed the current meta-analysis, which included only full-text articles, and added new findings.

AIM

To reveal the efficacy of prophylactic pancreatic stent (PS) placement for preventing PEP.

METHODS

We searched the MEDLINE, Cochrane Library and PubMed databases for related RCTs. Among the reports retrieved, 11 studies were included in this meta-analysis. All full-text articles were published between 1993 and 2016. A total of 1475 patients were enrolled in the included studies; of these patients, 734 had a PS inserted, and 741 did not have a PS inserted. PEP and severe PEP occurrence were evaluated in this meta-analysis.

RESULTS

PEP was observed in all studies and occurred in 39 (5.3%) patients who received a PS. On the other hand, PEP occurred in 141 (19%) patients who did not receive a PS. The occurrence of PEP was significantly lower in the patients who underwent PS placement than in the patients who did not receive a PS (OR = 0.32; 95%CI: 0.23-0.45; P < 0.001). In addition, the occurrence of severe PEP was evaluated. Notably, the occurrence of severe PEP was not observed in the stent group; however, the occurrence of severe PEP was observed in 8 (1.3%) patients who did not have a PS inserted. Severe PEP occurred significantly less often in the stent group than in the no stent group (OR = 0.24; 95%CI: 0.06-0.94; P = 0.04).

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, prophylactic PS placement is useful for preventing PEP and severe PEP.

Single-operator cholangioscopy for the treatment of concomitant gallbladder stones and secondary common bile duct stones

BACKGROUND AND AIM

This study aims to assess the clinical validity and safety of single-operator cholangioscopy system (SOCS) for the treatment of concomitant gallbladder stones and secondary common bile duct (CBD) stones.

METHODS

This retrospective study included 10 consecutive patients who had small-sized stones (< 1 cm) in both the gallbladder and CBD; the patients underwent SOCS treatment from June 2016 to December 2016. The clinical validity of this minimally invasive surgery was determined by the operation success rate, stone removal rate, postoperative hospital stay, hospitalization cost, and contrast images before and after the operation. The clinical safety was evaluated by perioperative complications and outcomes, gallbladder stone recurrence, and gallbladder contractility function.

RESULTS

Both the technique success rate and the stone removal rate when using SOCS was 100%. There were no serious complications that occurred during the operation; three patients developed acute cholecystitis, and four patients underwent hyperamylasemia after the surgery. The average postoperative hospital stay was 5.8 ± 1.32 days, and the average hospitalization cost was 7466 ± 566.1 dollars. In the follow-up period, which ranged from 3 to 8 months, there was no stone residuals or recurrences in the gallbladder and CBD, and no patient showed a recurrence of biliary colic. In addition, the gallbladder contractility function was proven to be normal within 3 to 6 months after the operation.

CONCLUSIONS

SOCS could successfully manage concomitant gallbladder stones and secondary CBD stones and precisely protect normal biliary function.

Comparison of endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation with and without a prior endoscopic sphincterotomy for the treatment of patients with large and/or multiple common bile duct stones: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Aim

To compare endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation (EPLBD) alone with EPLBD following endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) in patients with large and/or multiple common bile duct stones.

Methods

We conducted a comprehensive search of PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library database to identify relevant available articles until July 19, 2018. Complete common bile duct stone (CBDS) removal rate, frequency of mechanical lithotripsy (ML) usage, total procedure time and intra- and postoperative adverse events were analyzed. We used RevMan 5.3 to perform the pooled analyses.

Results

Seven RCTs matched the selection criteria. A total of 369 patients underwent EPLBD alone, and 367 patients underwent EPLBD following EST. Our meta-analysis revealed that there were no significant differences in terms of initial success rate (OR =0.69, 95% CI=0.44–1.09, P=0.11), frequency of ML usage (OR =1.18, 95% CI=0.68–2.05, P=0.55), rate of post-endoscopy pancreatitis (PEP) (OR =0.88, 95% CI=0.43–1.78, P=0.72), total procedure time (MD =1.52, 95% CI=-0.13–3.17, P=0.07), or other intra- and postoperative adverse events between the groups for patients with large and/or multiple CBDSs.

Conclusions

EPLBD alone was comparable to EPLBD with prior EST in patients with large and/or multiple CBDSs. Further studies are required to confirm the mechanisms of PEP in patients who accept EPLBD during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP).

Biliary endoscopic sphincterotomy: Techniques and complications

Biliary endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) refers to the cutting of the biliary sphincter and intraduodenal segment of the common bile duct following selective cannulation, using a high frequency current applied with a special knife, sphincterotome, inserted into the papilla. EST is either used solely for the treatment of diseases of the papilla of Vater, such as sphincter of Oddi dysfunction or to facilitate subsequent therapeutic biliary interventions, such as stone extraction, stenting, etc. It is a prerequisite for biliary interventions, thus every practitioner who performs endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography needs to know different techniques and the clinical and anatomic parameters related to the efficacy and safety of the procedure. In this manuscript, we will review the indications, contraindications and techniques of biliary EST and the management of its complications.

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

AIM

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Safety, diagnostic accuracy and therapeutic efficacy of digital single-operator cholangioscopy

Background

Digital single-operator cholangioscopes (digital SOCs), equipped with an improved image quality, have been recently introduced.

Objective

The aim of this study is to evaluate the safety and diagnostic and therapeutic efficacy of digital SOCs (Spyglass™ DS).

Methods

Sixty-seven digital SOC procedures performed between 2015 and 2017 were retrospectively analyzed.

Results

The most frequent indications for examination were indeterminate biliary strictures (61.2%) and biliary stone disease (23.9%). In 25 patients (37.3), visual findings predicted malignancy with a sensitivity of 88.9%, a specificity of 97.6%, a positive predictive value (PPV) of 96.0% and a negative predictive value (NPV) of 92.9%. For histological analysis, forceps biopsies were performed in 29 patients (43.2%). Compared with visual findings, forceps biopsies yield a lower diagnostic efficacy in diagnosing malignancy (sensitivity 62.5%, specificity 90.0%, PPV 90.9%, NPV 60.0%). Therapeutic interventions were performed in 19 patients with a technical success rate of 89.4%. Adverse events were observed in 17 patients (25.4%). Of these, 11 patients (16.4%) suffered from severe adverse events (pancreatitis, cholangitis or major bleeding), which led to a prolonged hospital stay.

Conclusion

Digital SOCs have excellent diagnostic and therapeutic efficacies, but are accompanied by high rates of adverse events; therefore, physicians should use digital SOCs in carefully selected cases.

Bleeding risk in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Impact of the use of antithrombotic drugs

AIMS

To analyze the risk factors for hemorrhage during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and the impact of antithrombotic drugs.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Data sources: papers indexed in PubMed have been reviewed, as well as those found during the analysis of the bibliography of meta-analysis and reviews.

SELECTION CRITERIA

the references have been firstly evaluated by review of the abstract. After selecting the most significant articles (mainly randomized trials and well-designed case series) these have been deeply analyzed. Evaluation of the studies and synthesis: criteria by the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine have been used for the analysis of the references and elaboration of evidence levels.

RESULTS

Seven hundred and sixty-five references were found, 753 in PubMed and the Cochrane Library. Twelve studies were selected during the analysis of other published articles (systematic reviews, meta-analysis and clinical practice guidelines). After analyzing the title or the abstract, 655 studies were excluded. Finally, 83 high quality trials or descriptive studies have been included in the analysis.

CONCLUSION

Seven conclusions regarding the risk factors for bleeding and the impact of antithrombotic drugs have been defined.

Updated guideline on the management of common bile duct stones (CBDS)

Common bile duct stones (CBDS) are estimated to be present in 10-20% of individuals with symptomatic gallstones. They can result in a number of health problems, including pain, jaundice, infection and acute pancreatitis. A variety of imaging modalities can be employed to identify the condition, while management of confirmed cases of CBDS may involve endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, surgery and radiological methods of stone extraction. Clinicians are therefore confronted with a number of potentially valid options to diagnose and treat individuals with suspected CBDS. The British Society of Gastroenterology first published a guideline on the management of CBDS in 2008. Since then a number of developments in management have occurred along with further systematic reviews of the available evidence. The following recommendations reflect these changes and provide updated guidance to healthcare professionals who are involved in the care of adult patients with suspected or proven CBDS. It is not a protocol and the recommendations contained within should not replace individual clinical judgement.

Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for cholelithiasis 2016

Cholelithiasis is one of the commonest diseases in gastroenterology. Remarkable improvements in therapeutic modalities for cholelithiasis and its complications are evident. The Japanese Society of Gastroenterology has revised the evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for cholelithiasis. Forty-three clinical questions, for four categories-epidemiology and pathogenesis, diagnosis, treatments, and prognosis and complications-were selected, and a literature search was performed for the clinical questions with use of the MEDLINE, Cochrane, and Igaku Chuo Zasshi databases for the period between 1983 and June 2012. The guidelines were developed with use of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system. This article preferentially describes the clinical management of cholelithiasis and its complications. Following description of the diagnosis performed stepwise through imaging modalities, treatments of cholecystolithiasis, choledocholithiasis, and hepatolithiasis are introduced along with a flowchart. Since there have been remarkable improvements in endoscopic treatments and surgical techniques, the guidelines ensure flexibility in choices according to the actual clinical environment. The revised clinical practice guidelines are appropriate for use by clinicians in their daily practice.

Is endoscopic papillary balloon dilatation really a risk factor for post-ERCP pancreatitis?

Endoscopic papillary balloon dilatation (EPBD) is useful for decreasing early complications of endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography (ERCP), including bleeding, biliary infection, and perforation, but it is generally avoided in Western countries because of a relatively high reported incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP). However, as the efficacy of endoscopic papillary large-balloon dilatation (EPLBD) becomes widely recognized, EPBD is attracting attention. Here we investigate whether EPBD is truly a risk factor for PEP, and seek safer and more effective EPBD procedures by reviewing past studies. We reviewed thirteen randomised control trials comparing EPBD and endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) and ten studies comparing direct EPLBD and EST. Three randomized controlled trials of EPBD showed significantly higher incidence of PEP than EST, but no study of EPLBD did. Careful analysis of these studies suggested that longer and higher-pressure inflation of balloons might decrease PEP incidence. The paradoxical result that EPBD with small-calibre balloons increases PEP incidence while EPLBD does not may be due to insufficient papillary dilatation in the former. Insufficient dilatation could cause the high incidence of PEP through the use of mechanical lithotripsy and stress on the papilla at the time of stone removal. Sufficient dilation of the papilla may be useful in preventing PEP.

Effectiveness and safety of endoscopic sphincterotomy and papillary balloon dilatation in treatment of extrahepatic bile duct stones

AIM: To compare the effectiveness and safety of endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) and papillary balloon dilatation (EPBD) in the treatment of extrahepatic bile duct stones.

METHODS: Two hundred and seventeen patients with extrahepatic bile duct stones treated by EST or EPBD were included in this study, and the therapeutic effect, X-ray exposure time and complications were compared and analyzed.

RESULTS: The complete clearance rate of stones did not differ between the EST group and EPBD group (93.8% vs 94.3%, P > 0.05), and the X-ray exposure time was significantly shorter in the EPBD group than in the EST group (P < 0.05). There was no significant difference in the incidence rate of complications between the two groups (P > 0.05), but the incidence rate of post-endoscopic pancreatitis was significantly higher in the EPBD group than in the EST group (12.5% vs 4.7%, P < 0.05). All 17 cases of post-endoscopic pancreatitis were mild. The hemorrhage rate was significantly higher in the EST group than in the EPBD group (11.6% vs 3.4%, P < 0.05); all the 18 cases of hemorrhage were controllable. The rate of recurrent bile duct stones with acute cholangitis of severe type (ACST) was significantly higher in the EST group than in the EPBD group (44.1% vs 18.2%, P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION: Both EST and EPBD are mature and safe methods to treat extrahepatic bile duct stones, but EPBD can better protect the function of Oddi sphincter and reduce the incidence of long-term complications.

Endoscopic sphincterotomy vs endoscopic papillary balloon dilation for retrieval of common bile duct stones

AIM: To compare the efficacy and safety of endoscopic papillary balloon dilation (EPBD) with endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) in the treatment of common bile duct stones.

METHODS: A retrospective review of 266 patients with common bile duct stones treated at our hospital was conducted. Basic situations, stone diameter, stone extraction method, stone-free rate, and complications were compared between the EST group and EPBD group.

RESULTS: Complete stone clearance was achieved in 94.1% of patients in the EST group and 95.4% of those in the EPBD group (P > 0.05). Complications occurred in 9.6% of patients in the EST group and 11.5% of those in EPBD group (P > 0.05). The frequency of acute pancreatitis was higher in the EPBD group than in the EST group (9.2% vs 3.7%; P < 0.05). Hemorrhage occurred only in the EST group (P < 0.05). Performances of pancreatography and mechanical lithotripsy were risk factors for postoperative pancreatitis. Billroth II gastrectomy, peripapillary duodenal diverticulum, and bile duct stone diameter were factors influencing successful stone removal.

CONCLUSION: EST and EPBD are approximately equivalent in terms of successful clearance of common bile duct stones and overall complications. Performances of pancreatography and mechanical lithotripsy are risk factors for postoperative pancreatitis. The procedure of EPBD is more simple and especially safer for elderly and patients with coagulation dysfunction or requiring anti-coagulation treatment.

Efficacy and Safety of Endoscopic Papillary Balloon Dilation Using Cap-Fitted Forward-Viewing Endoscope in Patients Who Underwent Billroth II Gastrectomy

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Endoscopic exploration of the common bile duct (CBD) is difficult and dangerous in patients with Billroth II gastrectomy (B-II). Endoscopic papillary balloon dilation (EPBD) via a cap-fitted forward-viewing endoscope has been reported to be an effective and safe procedure. We analyzed the technical success and complications of EPBD in patients who underwent B-II.

METHODS

Thirty-six consecutive patients with B-II were enrolled from among 2,378 patients who had undergone endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in a single institute in the last 4 years. The EPBD procedure was carried out using a cap-fitted forward-viewing endoscope with 8-mm balloon catheters for 60 seconds. We analyzed the rates of CBD exploration, technical success, and complications.

RESULTS

Afferent loop intubation was performed in all patients and selective cannulation of the bile duct was performed in 32 patients (88.9%). Complications such as transient hypoxia were observed in two patients (5.6%) and perforation, in three patients (9.7%). The perforation sites were ductal injury in two patients and one patient showed retroperitoneal air alone without symptoms. Three patients manifested different clinical courses of severe acute pancreatitis and peritonitis, transient abdominal pain, and retroperitoneal air alone. The condition of one patient improved with surgery and that of the other two patients, with conservative management.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with perforation during EPBD in B-II showed different clinical courses. Tailored treatment strategies are necessary for improving the clinical outcomes.

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

Background

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

Material/Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

Endoscopic sphincterotomy with sphincteroplasty for the management of choledocholithiasis: a single-centre experience

BACKGROUND

Balloon dilatation of the ampulla at endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is increasingly utilized in the management of large bile duct stones. The aim of this study was to review and compare the outcomes of using endoscopic sphincterotomy with endoscopic balloon dilatation (sphincteroplasty) in a combined approach as a single-stage (immediate) or a two-stage procedure (delayed).

METHODS

A retrospective review of medical records for all patients undergoing ERCP and balloon dilatation for choledocholithiasis between January 2010 and December 2012 was undertaken. Outcomes measured included patient demographics, stone size, degree of dilatation performed, success of stone extraction, number of procedures required for duct clearance and procedure-related complications.

RESULTS

One hundred and thirty-six ERCPs were performed with balloon sphincteroplasty. One hundred and four had a previous sphincterotomy with a delayed balloon dilatation and 32 had sphincterotomy with immediate dilatation. The overall clearance rate of the common bile duct for immediate and delayed groups was 93% (28/30) and 93% (81/87), respectively. Bile duct clearance after the first procedure was achieved in 70% (21/30) of patients in the immediate group and 74% (64/87) in the delayed group. There were six complications in the delayed group and four in the immediate group. The most frequently used balloon size was 10 mm for both groups with mean sizes of 10.34 (2.93) and 11.73 (2.87) in the immediate and delayed groups, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Our study suggests that use of a combined approach is safe and effective and may provide benefits over using endoscopic balloon dilatation or endoscopic sphincterotomy alone in the treatment of choledocholithiasis.

Nasobiliary drainage after endoscopic papillary balloon dilatation may prevent postoperative pancreatitis

AIM: To evaluate the necessity of endoscopic nasobiliary drainage (ENBD) catheter placement after clearance of common bile duct (CBD) stones.

METHODS: Patients enrolled in this study were randomly divided into two groups, according to whether or not they received ENBD after the removal of CBD stones. Group 1 (ENBD group) was then subdivided into three groups: G1a patients received an endoscopic papillary balloon dilatation (EPBD), G1b patients received an endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST), and G1c patients received neither. Group 2 (non-ENBD group) patients were also subdivided into three groups (G2a, G2b, and G2c), similar to Group 1. The maximum CBD diameter, the time for C-reactive protein (CRP) to normalize, levels of serum amylase, total serum bilirubin (TB) and alanine aminotransferase (ALT), and postoperative hospitalization duration (PHD) were measured.

RESULTS: A total of 218 patients (139 males, 79 females), with an average age of 60.1 ± 10.8 years, were enrolled in this study. One hundred and thirteen patients who received ENBD were included in Group 1, and 105 patients who did not receive ENBD were included in Group 2. The baseline clinical characteristics were similar in both groups. There were no significant differences in post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP)-related complications when Groups 1 and 2 were compared. Seventy-seven patients underwent EPBD, and 41 received an ENBD tube (G1a) and 36 did not (G2a). Seventy-three patients underwent EST, and 34 patients received an ENBD tube (G1b) and 39 did not (G2b). The remaining 68 patients underwent neither EPBD nor EST; of these patients, 38 received an ENBD tube (G1c) and 30 did not (G2c). For each of the three pairs of subgroups (G1a vs G2a, G1b vs G2b, G1c vs G2c), there were no significant differences detected in the PHD or the time to normalization of CRP, TB and ALT. In the EPBD group, the incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis, hyperamylasemia and overall patient complications was significantly higher for G2a (post-ERCP pancreatitis: 6/36 vs 0/41, P = 0.0217; hyperamylasemia: 11/36 vs 4/41, P = 0.0215; overall patient complications: 18/36 vs 7/41, P = 0.0029).

CONCLUSION: After successful CBD stone clearance, ENBD is only beneficial when an EPBD procedure has been performed.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

New anticoagulant and antiplatelet agents: a primer for the gastroenterologist

A large number of patients worldwide receive anticoagulant and antiplatelet agents, collectively known as antithrombotic agents. Several new anticoagulants and antiplatelet agents recently were approved for use. Gastroenterologists may be unfamiliar with the mechanism of action, indications for use, and pharmacokinetics of these newer drugs. In patients undergoing elective and urgent endoscopic procedures, clinicians must be familiar with these medications to optimize outcomes. When the decision is made to continue the newer antithrombotic agents for elective procedures, the clinician must understand the risk that these agents may impart on procedural-induced bleeding. Finally, it is important to understand how to manage these agents in the presence of acute gastrointestinal bleeding. In this article the use of newer antithrombotic agents is reviewed.

TG13 current terminology, etiology, and epidemiology of acute cholangitis and cholecystitis

While referring to the evidence adopted in the Tokyo Guidelines 2007 (TG07) as well as subsequently obtained evidence, further discussion took place on terminology, etiology, and epidemiological data. In particular, new findings have accumulated on the occurrence of symptoms in patients with gallstones, frequency of severe cholecystitis and cholangitis, onset of cholecystitis and cholangitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and medications, mortality rate, and recurrence rate. The primary etiology of acute cholangitis/cholecystitis is the presence of stones. Next to stones, the most significant etiology of acute cholangitis is benign/malignant stenosis of the biliary tract. On the other hand, there is another type of acute cholecystitis, acute acalculous cholecystitis, in which stones are not involved as causative factors. Risk factors for acute acalculous cholecystitis include surgery, trauma, burn, and parenteral nutrition. After 2000, the mortality rate of acute cholangitis has been about 10 %, while that of acute cholecystitis has generally been less than 1 %. After the publication of TG07, diagnostic criteria and severity assessment criteria were standardized, and the distribution of cases according to severity and comparison of clinical data among target populations have become more subjective. The concept of healthcare-associated infections is important in the current treatment of infection. The treatment of acute cholangitis and cholecystitis substantially differs from that of community-acquired infections. Cholangitis and cholecystitis as healthcare-associated infections are clearly described in the updated Tokyo Guidelines (TG13). Free full-text articles and a mobile application of TG13 are available via http://www.jshbps.jp/en/guideline/tg13.html.

Improving ERCP quality and decreasing risk to patients and providers

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) continues to be one of the most complex gastrointestinal procedures and carries the highest risk of complications. Optimizing the outcome of ERCP requires a fine balance between the risk and the benefit of every maneuver performed. This fine balance has to include an analysis of the indication for the procedure, the optimal timing, the setting where the procedure is performed, the endoscopist and staff training and expertise, availability of surgical and interventional radiology support, the risk of every maneuver and ways to minimize this risk. As in any other procedure, it is very important to know one's limitations and have a plan for failed procedures including consulting a colleague or referring the patient to a center with more expertise. In addition, a process of quality improvement is integral to every endoscopy center to address areas of underperformance, improve patient care and decrease liability.

Endoscopic papillary balloon dilatation in comparison with endoscopic sphincterotomy for the treatment of large common bile duct stone

BACKGROUND

There are concerns on the efficacy and safety of endoscopic papillary balloon dilatation (EPBD) as an alternative to endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) in the treatment of choledocholithiasis. We compared the efficacy and safety of EPBD and EST for removing large common bile duct (CBD) stones.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

One hundred sixty patients with CBD stones of 10-20 mm were randomized to undergo EPBD or EST. A 15-mm dilatation balloon was used for EPBD. Cotton's criteria were used to determine the incidence of post-EPBD or post-EST complications. CBD stone removal and complications were compared between the two methods.

RESULTS

CBD stones were completely removed in 97.5% of the EPBD and 96.2% of the EST group (P = 0.5). The incidence of postoperative pancreatitis (11.2% vs 8.7%) and bleeding (1.2% vs 1.2%) were similar between the EPBD and EST groups (P > 0.05). Perforation did not occur in any patient.

CONCLUSIONS

EPBD with 15-mm dilator balloon appears to be equally safe and effective compared with EST for removal of large CBD stones. So because of low complication and high success rate we recommend EPBD as the preferred method for removal of large (10-20 mm) CBD stones.

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

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) alone and EST combined with balloon dilation (ESBD) are important endoscopic techniques for stone extraction. We were to conduct a meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of ESBD and EST.

METHODS

Meta-analysis was performed respectively on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and nonrandomized studies comparing the efficacy and safety of ESBD and EST.

RESULTS

The results of three RCTs showed that stone removal in first session (relative risk [RR] 1.01, 0.92-1.11, P=0.85) and the utility of endoscopic mechanical lithotripsy (EML) (RR 0.78, 0.49-1.23, P=0.29) were equivalent between ESBD and EST. ESBD has equivalent complications (RR 0.61, 0.17-2.25, P=0.46) and post-ERCP pancreatitis (Peto odds ratio [OR] 1.11, 0.37-3.35, P=0.86), but less bleeding (Peto OR 0.10, 0.03-0.30, P<0.0001). The analysis of six retrospective studies suggested higher initial success in stone removal (RR 1.11, 1.02-1.20, P=0.01) and less EML (RR 0.32, 0.22-0.46, P<0.00001) in ESBD group. Less complications (RR 0.60, 0.44-0.83, P=0.02) happened in ESBD group, but equivalent post-ERCP pancreatitis (Peto OR 0.65, 0.37-1.15, P=0.14) and bleeding (Peto OR 0.60, 0.29-1.26, P=0.18). For patients with stones ≥ 15 mm, ESBD required less EML (RR 0.35, 0.24-0.51, P<0.00001) and caused fewer complications (RR 0.67, 0.38-0.92, P=0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

ESBD is feasible for the treatment of choledocholithiasis without increased risk of complications, causing less bleeding. However, it warrants more clinical trials to compare the efficacy and safety of ESBD and EST.

Endoscopic papillary balloon intermittent dilatation and endoscopic sphincterotomy for bile duct stones

AIM: To compare the effectiveness and safety of endoscopic papillary balloon intermittent dilatation (EPBID) and endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) in the treatment of common bile duct stones.

METHODS: From March 2011 to May 2012, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography was performed in 560 patients, 262 with common bile duct stones. A total of 206 patients with common bile duct stones were enrolled in the study and randomized to receive either EPBID with a 10-12 mm dilated balloon or EST (103 patients in each group). For both groups a conventional reticular basket or balloon was used to remove the stones. After the procedure, routine endoscopic nasobiliary drainage was performed.

RESULTS: First-time stone removal was successfully performed in 94 patients in the EPBID group (91.3%) and 75 patients in the EST group (72.8%). There was no statistically significant difference in terms of operation time between the two groups. The overall incidence of early complications in the EPBID and EST groups was 2.9% and 13.6%, respectively, with no deaths reported during the course of the study and follow-up. Multiple regression analysis showed that the success rate of stone removal was associated with stone removal method [odds ratio (OR): 5.35; 95%CI: 2.24-12.77; P = 0.00], the transverse diameter of the stone (OR: 2.63; 95%CI: 1.19-5.80; P = 0.02) and the presence or absence of diverticulum (OR: 2.35; 95%CI: 1.03-5.37; P = 0.04). Postoperative pancreatitis was associated with the EST method of stone removal (OR: 5.00; 95%CI: 1.23-20.28; P = 0.02) and whether or not pancreatography was performed (OR: 0.10; 95%CI: 0.03-0.35; P = 0.00).

CONCLUSION: The EPBID group had a higher success rate of stone removal with a lower incidence of pancreatitis compared with the EST group.

Endoscopic approach to the bile duct in the patient with surgically altered anatomy

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in surgically altered anatomy can be technically challenging, because of three main problems that must be overcome: (1) endoscopically traversing the altered luminal anatomy, (2) cannulating the biliary orifice from an altered position, and (3) performing biliary interventions with available ERCP instruments. This article addresses the most common and most challenging variations in anatomy encountered by a gastroenterologist performing ERCP. It also highlights the innovations and progress that have been made in coping with these anatomic variations, with special attention paid to altered anatomy from bariatric surgery.