Endoscopic papillary large-balloon dilation versus endoscopic papillary regular-balloon dilation for removal of large bile-duct stones

Long-term outcomes of endoscopic papillary large-balloon dilation (12-15 mm) with or without limited sphincterotomy for removal of bile duct stones

BACKGROUND

Limited endoscopic sphincterotomy with large balloon dilation (ES-LBD) and endoscopic papillary large-balloon dilation (EPLBD) have been proven safe and effective for removal of bile duct stones. However, the long-term outcomes are not clear. The aim of this study was to assess the long-term outcomes of EPLBD (12-15 mm) with or without limited sphincterotomy for removal of common bile duct (CBD) stones.

METHODS

Patients with EPLBD or ES-LBD referred for the removal of bile-duct stones between June 2008 and August 2020 were retrospectively reviewed. Complete stone clearance, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP)-related adverse events, and late biliary complications during long-term follow-up were analyzed.

RESULTS

Basic patient characteristics were not significantly different between the groups that underwent EPLBD (n = 168) and ES-LBD (n = 57). EPLBD compared with ES-LBD resulted in similar outcomes in terms of overall successful stone removal (99.4% vs. 100%, P = 1.00) and ERCP-related adverse events (7.7% vs. 5.3%, P = 0.77). The mean duration of the follow-up was 113.6 months and 106.7 months for patients with EPLBD and ES-LBD, respectively (P = 0.13). There was no significant difference between EPLBD and ES-LBD in the incidence of stone recurrence [20 (11.9%) vs. 9 (15.8%); P = 0.49]. Multivariate analysis showed that a diameter of CBD ≥ 15 mm (OR = 3.001; 95% CI: 1.357-6.640; P = 0.007) was an independent risk factor for stone recurrence.

CONCLUSIONS

The application of a large balloon (12-15 mm) via EPLBD is an effective and safe alternative to ES-LBD for extraction of large CBD stones. Endoscopic sphincterotomy prior to EPLBD may be unnecessary. A diameter of CBD ≥ 15 mm is a risk factor of stone recurrence.

The efficacy of limited endoscopic sphincterotomy plus endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation for removal of large bile duct stones

BACKGROUND

The removal of large bile duct stones (> 15 mm) by conventional endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) and endoscopic papillary balloon dilation (EPBD) can be challenging, requiring mechanical lithotripsy (ML) in addition to EST or EPBD. The primary complication of ML is basket and stone impaction, which can lead to complications such as pancreatitis and cholangitis. The present study aims to investigate the efficacy of limited EST plus endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation (EST-EPLBD) for large bile duct stone extraction with an extent of cutting < 1/2 the length of the papillary mound.

METHODS

We enrolled 185 patients with ≥15 mm bile duct stones who received EST, EPLBD and limited EST-EPLBD treatment from January 1, 2010 to February 28, 2018, at Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital (Kaohsiung, Taiwan). All patients were categorized into three groups: EST group (n = 31), EPLBD group (n = 96), and limited EST-EPLBD group (n = 58). The primary outcome variables were the success rate of complete stone removal and complications.

RESULTS

The limited EST-EPLBD group exhibited a higher success rate of the first-session treatment compared with the EST and EPLBD groups (98.3% vs. 83.9% vs. 86.5%; P = 0.032) but required a longer procedure time (32 (12-61) min vs. 23.5 (17-68) min vs. 25.0 (14-60) min; P = 0.001). The need for ML during the procedure was 4 (12.9%) in the EST group, 10 (10.4%) in the EPLBD group and 2 (3.4%) in the limited EST-EPLBD group. Post-procedure bleeding in the EST group was more common than that in the limited EST-EPLBD group (9.7% vs. 0%; P = 0.038). Furthermore, dilated bile duct was the only risk factor for bile duct stone recurrence in the limited EST-EPLBD group.

CONCLUSIONS

Limited EST-EPLBD exhibits a higher success rate but requires marginally longer procedure time for the first-session treatment. Furthermore, dilated bile duct is the only risk factor for bile duct stone recurrence in patients undergoing limited EST-EPLBD.

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).

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

Background/Aims

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

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.

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.