Comparable Long-term Outcomes of 1-Minute vs 5-Minute Endoscopic Papillary Balloon Dilation for Bile Duct Stones

Endoscopic Papillary Large Balloon Dilatation With or Without Endoscopic Sphincterotomy in the Treatment of Common Bile Duct Stones

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation (EPLBD) has been proved to have better efficacy and safety in removing common bile duct stones. Conventional endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) is usually performed before EPLBD. However, EPLBD without EST has recently reported short-term outcomes similar to those of EPLBD with EST. This article summarizes the latest research advances in EPLBD with or without EST for the treatment of large common bile duct stones (CBDS) as a way to provide further evidence to support the ERCP surgeon's choice of which technique to use for the treatment of large CBDS.

FINDINGS

EPLBD alone is recommended in cases of anatomical abnormalities or bleeding tendencies. EPLBD with EST is recommended in patients with stenosis of the duodenal papilla or distal common bile duct or with periportal diverticula. Most clinical studies have shown that the clinical efficacy and incidence of adverse events associated with ESLBD are comparable to those of standalone EPLBD. However, further large-scale prospective randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm these findings.

Current Gallstone Treatment Methods, State of the Art

This study aims to provide valuable references for clinicians in selecting appropriate surgical methods for biliary tract stones based on patient conditions. In this paper, the advantages and disadvantages of various minimally invasive cholelithiasis surgical techniques are systematically summarized and innovative surgical approaches and intelligent stone removal technologies are introduced. The goal is to evaluate and predict future research priorities and development trends in the field of gallstone surgery. In recent years, the incidence of gallstone-related diseases, including cholecystolithiasis and choledocholithiasis, has significantly increased. This surge in cases has prompted the development of several innovative methods for gallstone extraction, with minimally invasive procedures gaining the most popularity. Among these techniques, PTCS, ERCP, and LCBDE have garnered considerable attention, leading to new surgical techniques; however, it must be acknowledged that each surgical method has its unique indications and potential complications. The primary challenge for clinicians is selecting a surgical approach that minimizes patient trauma while reducing the incidence of complications such as pancreatitis and gallbladder cancer and preventing the recurrence of gallstones. The integration of artificial intelligence with stone extraction surgeries offers new opportunities to address this issue. Regarding the need for preoperative preparation for PTCS surgery, we recommend a combined approach of PTBD and PTOBF. For ERCP-based stone extraction, we recommend a small incision of the Oddi sphincter followed by 30 s of balloon dilation as the optimal procedure. If conditions permit, a biliary stent can be placed post-extraction. For the surgical approach of LCBDE, we recommend the transduodenal (TD) approach. Artificial intelligence is involved throughout the entire process of gallstone detection, treatment, and prognosis, and more AI-integrated medical technologies are expected to be applied in the future.

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.

SEED Consensus Document on SpyGlass-DS

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is the technique of choice for the treatment of biliopancreatic pathology. However, fluoroscopic imaging does not always allow an adequate diagnosis. On the other hand, some large stones cannot be removed by the usual methods. In these situations, cholangioscopy has proven to be an essential tool for the diagnosis of biliary strictures and the treatment of large stones. Its role in pancreatic pathology is also increasing. The development of a single-operator, disposable cholangioscope has made it possible to expand the technique to a large number of hospitals that perform ERCP. For this reason, the Spanish Society of Digestive Endoscopy has developed this consensus document on the use of the Spyglass-DS cholangioscope. The document has been prepared by a group of endoscopists with expertise in cholangioscopy, reviewing the scientific evidence on the main current indications for cholangiopancreatoscopy.

Endoscopic Management of Complex Biliary Stones

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

The therapeutic effect of balloon dilatation with different duration for biliary duct calculi: A network meta-analysis

Objective:

To systematically evaluate the application effect of endoscopic papillary balloon dilatation (EPBD) with different balloon dilatation duration for biliary duct calculi, and find the most appropriate dilatation duration for EPBD using a network meta-analysis.

Materials and Methods:

PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library databases were searched for relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published up to August 2020. Node split, consistency and inconsistency models analysis were all conducted in network meta-analysis.

Results:

Eighteen RCTs with 2256 participants were finally analysed. EPBD was divided into four categories based on balloon dilatation duration, including EPBD (P0.5), EPBD (>0.5, ≤1), EPBD (1, ≤2) and EPBD (>2, ≤5). Compared with EPBD (>0.5, ≤1), EPBD (>2, ≤5) had a lower risk of early complications (odds ratio [OR] = 0.23, 95% credible interval [CI] = 0.05–0.96) and post-endoscopic procedure pancreatitis (PEP) (OR = 0.17, 95% CI = 0.03–0.72). Endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) tended to have less need for mechanical lithotripsy (OR = 0.37, 95% CI = 0.16–0.88) and PEP (OR = 0.26, 95% CI = 0.08–0.71) than EPBD (>0.5, ≤1). EPBD (>2, ≤5) was the safest endoscopic procedure with respect to early complications (surface area under cumulative ranking curves [SUCRA] = 79.0) and PEP (SUCRA = 85.3). In addition, EPBD (>2, ≤5) and EST had the highest probability of being the best (SUCRA = 82.6) and the worst (SUCRA = 10.8), respectively, regarding late complications.

Conclusion:

EPBD and EST are two methods used to treat uncomplicated choledocholithiasis (stone diameter <10 mm and stone number <3). The extension of balloon dilatation duration has no significant influence on successful stone removal in the first endoscopic session or preventing the need for mechanical lithotripsy. However, it can reduce the risk of early complications, especially PEP. What's more, EPBD seems to have less late complications compared with EST, and the effect of prolonged balloon dilatation duration on late complications still needs to be further explored. Therefore, 2–5 min is the recommended dilatation duration range for EPBD using balloon with ≤10 mm diameter. Further research based on a specific population and with a longer follow-up time are needed.

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 endoclip papilloplasty preserves sphincter of oddi function

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) can destroy sphincter of Oddi (SO) structure and function. The purpose of this study was to assess the feasibility of endoscopic endoclip papilloplasty (EEPP) in restoring SO function after EST.

METHODS

Seven 26-week-old domestic pigs were divided into control and EEPP groups. Necropsy and haematoxylin-eosin staining plus anti-α-smooth muscle actin (α-SMA) staining of papilla and sphincter of Oddi manometry (SOM) were conducted in animals at three independent time points.

RESULTS

EST and EEPP were safely performed in all 7 pigs without serious adverse events. For primary outcome, compared to the controls, EEPP generated smaller dilation and less inflammation. Fibrous repair of the papilla was observed at 24 weeks after EEPP. For secondary outcome, in the control group, SO basal pressure (17.25 ± 18.14 to 5.50 ± 0.71 mmHg), SO contraction amplitude (46.00 ± 19.20 to 34.50 ± 48.79 mmHg), peak (4.50 ± 4.04 to 1.50 ± 2.12) and frequency (3.05 ± 3.29 to 1.41 ± 2.19/min) were reduced after EST. Further reductions to almost 0 of these SOM parameters were observed 3 weeks later, including common bile duct pressure and SO contraction period. In contrast, in the EEPP group, these manometric data were recovered to pre-EST levels, including CBD pressure (11.5 ± 7.31 vs 11 ± 2.16 mmHg), SO pressure (17.50 ± 17.75 vs 18.20 ± 21.39 mmHg) and SO contraction amplitude (53.67 ± 21.54 vs 60.00 ± 36.08 mmHg). However, no significant differences were observed between control and EEPP groups by Student t test.

CONCLUSIONS

In this porcine study, EEPP accelerated and improved papillary healing after EST, further preserved SO function.

Digital single-operator video cholangioscopy in treating refractory biliary stones: a multicenter observational study

BACKGROUND

Standard endoscopic treatment might fail to treat biliary stone disease. Here, we investigated the efficacy and safety of recently introduced digital single-operator video cholangioscopy (SOVC) for the treatment of difficult biliary stones.

METHODS

Digital SOVC procedures, performed in two tertiary referral centers between 2015 and 2018, were retrospectively analyzed. Only patients with a previous failure of endoscopic standard treatment and a SOVC-based biliary stone treatment using electrohydraulic lithotripsy (EHL) or laser lithotripsy (LL) were included. The primary endpoint was to evaluate the stone removal rate per procedure and per patient.

RESULTS

In total, 75 examinations with a digital SOVC-assisted biliary stone treatment, performed in 60 patients, were identified. Biliary stones were mainly located extrahepatic (64%) and less frequently intrahepatic (36%). The median stone size was 20 mm (interquartile range [IQR]: 10-25 mm) and the median stone number was 1 (IQR: 1-2). Digital SOVC-based treatment of biliary stone disease was successful in 95% of patients and 15% needed at least two treatment sessions. Evaluated per procedure, a complete stone removal was accomplished in 67% of all examinations (including initial and repeated procedures), while an incomplete stone removal was observed in 33% of cases. The per procedure analyzes revealed that the success rates for a complete stone removal were similar between LL and EHL (66% vs. 68%; p = 0.87). Complications, such as postinterventional cholangitis and pancreatitis occurred in 16% of examinations; however, except from one case, all were mild or moderate and no procedure-associated mortality occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

Digital SOVC-assisted biliary stone treatment is highly effective even in cases with difficult biliary stones and might be considered the new standard of care for these patients. Furthermore, mild up to moderate complications were intermittently observed which might document the complexity of our included cases.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

FINDINGS

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

INTERPRETATION

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

FUNDING

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

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

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

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

Endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation and endoscopic papillary balloon dilation both without sphincterotomy for removal of large bile duct stones: A propensity-matched analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation (EPLBD) without endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) may facilitate extraction of large bile duct stones through achieving adequate dilation of the ampulla. However, contrary to favorable long-term outcomes after endoscopic papillary balloon dilation (EPBD), that of EPLBD without EST has been little investigated. Therefore, we conducted the current study to evaluate short- and long-term outcomes of EPLBD without EST and EPBD after removal of large bile duct stones (LBDS; ≥10 mm).

METHODS

This retrospective study included patients without a previous history of EST, EPBD or EPLBD who underwent EPLBD without EST or EPBD for removal of LBDS. Each patient in the EPLBD without EST group was matched to a patient in the EPBD group using propensity scores.

RESULTS

Forty-four patients in each group were matched for the analysis. Baseline characteristics were balanced after propensity matching. Rate of complete stone removal in a single session was higher (80% vs 16%, P < 0.001), number of ERCP sessions (1.3 ± 0.7 vs 2.4 ± 1.5, P < 0.001) and rate of lithotripsy use (30% vs 80%, P < 0.001) were smaller in the matched EPLBD without EST group. Contrary to null between-group differences in early adverse events (P = 0.99), a cumulative rate of late biliary complications was higher in the EPLBD without EST group (P = 0.02).

CONCLUSION

EPLBD without EST showed higher efficacy for removal of LBDS but was associated with worse long-term outcomes when compared to EPBD.