Endoscopic sphincterotomy plus large-balloon dilation versus endoscopic sphincterotomy for removal of bile-duct stones

History of the Interventional Pancreaticobiliary Endoscopy

With the introduction of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and linear endoscopic ultrasound, interventional pancreaticobiliary (PB) endoscopy has had an enormous impact in the management of pancreatic and biliary diseases. Continuous efforts to improve various devices and techniques have revolutionized these treatment modalities as viable alternatives to surgery. In recent years, trends toward combining endoscopic techniques with other modalities, such as laparoscopic and radiological interventions, for complex PB diseases have emerged using a multidisciplinary approach. Ongoing research and clinical experience will lead to refinements in interventional PB endoscopic techniques and subsequently improve outcomes and reduce complication rates.

The Relation between Post-Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography Pancreatitis and Different Cannulation Techniques: The Experience of a High-Volume Center from North-Eastern Romania

BACKGROUND

Despite numerous advances that have aimed to increase the safety of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) still remains a major issue. We aimed to assess the rate of PEP as well as the relation to the cannulation techniques in our unit, a high-volume center in north-eastern Romania.

METHODS

ERCPs performed in our unit from March to August 2022 were retrospectively included. Data concerning demographic information, presence of difficult cannulation, the technique used for cannulation, as well as immediate complications, were gathered from the electronic database.

RESULTS

233 ERCPs were included. PEP was diagnosed in 23 (9.9%) of cases. Precut sphincterotomy (PS), transpancreatic sphincterotomy (TPBS), and a combination of TPBS and PS were performed in 6.4%, 10.3%, and 1.7% of cases, respectively, while an Erlangen precut papillotomy was performed in one case. Both in patients with PS and TPBS the rate of PEP was 20%. When the two techniques were associated, the rate of PEP was 25%. TPBS and PS represented risk factors for PEP (OR 1.211 for a CI of 0.946-1.551, p = 0.041, and OR 1.124 for a CI of 0.928-1.361, p = 0.088, respectively). No PEP-associated deaths were found.

CONCLUSIONS

Both PS and TPBS presented a similar risk of PEP.

Combined endoscopic large balloon dilation with limited sphincterotomy versus sole sphincterotomy for removal of large or multiple common bile duct stones

Background

Endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation (EPLBD) after sphincterotomy (EST) was introduced for the removal of large (≥ 10 mm) or multiple bile duct stones. This method combines the advantages of EST and EPLBD by increasing the efficacy of stone extraction while minimizing complications of EST and EPLBD when used alone. This prospective study aimed to compare between EPLBD with prior limited EST and sole sphnicterotomy for extraction of multiple and/or large common bile duct stones.

Results

Statistical analysis revealed insignificant difference between the studied groups as regards the presence of periamullary diverticulum (23% vs. 19%, P > 0.05) and the use of mechanical lithotripsy (4% vs. 9%, P > 0.05). The rates of overall and initial stone clearance were not significantly different between both groups [94% vs. 90%), P > 0.05; and 84% vs. 78%, P > 0.05, respectively]. The procedure-related pancreatitis and bleeding in EST/EPLBD group were lower compared to EST group (3% vs. 5%, P > 0.05; and 2% vs. 6%, P > 0.05, respectively). None of the studied groups’ patients died or developed procedure-related perforation or cholangitis.

Conclusion

Endoscopic large balloon dilation with prior limited sphincterotomy is an effective and safe endoscopic technique for removing multiple and/or large CBDSs.

Bile Duct Stone Size May Influence the Efficacy of Endoscopic Sphincterotomy With or Without Large-Balloon Dilation: A Meta-Analysis

Purpose: Endoscopic sphincterotomy (EPT) combined with endoscopic papillary large balloon dilatation (EPBD) are used to remove large common bile duct (CBD) stones. This meta-analysis compared the efficacy and safety of EPT+EPBD versus EPT alone in the removal of stones based on stone size. Materials and Methods: Twenty-two studies (11 randomized control trials [RCTs] and 11 non-RCTs) were identified and reviewed based on searches of Embase, PubMed, and Web of Science. CBD stone's size was measured with reference to diameter of the duodenoscope (13 mm) and size of the large dilatation balloon (17 mm) seen on cholangiogram. The stone clearance rate, required mechanical lithotripsy (ML), procedure time, and pancreatitis were compared according to the mean stone size, and further divided into Groups A (small) 10-13 mm, B (medium) 13-17 mm, and C (large) >17 mm. Results: Subgroup analysis according to CBD stone size showed EPT + EPBD had a significantly better initial stone clearance rate than EPT in Groups B (odds ratio [OR] = 2.39, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.20-4.77) and C (OR = 3.05, 95% CI: 1.86-5.03), but not for Group A (OR = 1.41, 95% CI: 0.90-2.21). EPT+EPBD also required significantly less ML than EPT in Groups B (OR = 0.34, 95% CI: 0.15-0.77) and C (OR = 0.31, 95% CI: 0.13-0.73). EPT+EPBD had significantly shorter procedure time than EPT in Group B (standardized mean difference = -1.20, 95% CI: -2.08 to 0.32). In meta-regression analysis, Group B had a better OR in initial stone clearance rate and less ML usage rate correlation with the size of CBD stone, but not for Group C with larger stones. Conclusions: EPT+EPBD had a significantly better initial stone clearance rate, and required less ML with shorter procedure time than EPT for removing medium-sized CBD stones, but the efficacy was limited to large CBD stones. The study protocol and trial registration had been registered in PROSPERO (Registration No. CRD42020171689).

Endoscopic sphincterotomy vs papillary large balloon dilation vs combination modalities for large common bile duct stones: a network meta-analysis

Background and study aims  The optimal technique for removal of large common bile duct (CBD) stones (≥ 10 mm) during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) remains unclear. We aimed to perform a comparative analysis between different endoscopic techniques. Methods  Adhering to PRISMA guidelines, a stringent search of the following databases through January 12, 2021, were undertaken: PubMed/Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane. Randomized controlled trials comparing the following endoscopic techniques were included: (1) Endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST); (2) Endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation (EPLBD); and (3) EST plus large balloon dilation (ESLBD). Stone clearance rate (SCR) on index ERCP was the primary outcome/endpoint. Need for mechanical lithotripsy (ML) and adverse events were also evaluated as secondary endpoint. Random effects model and frequentist approach were used for statistical analysis. Results  A total of 16 studies with 2545 patients (1009 in EST group, 588 in EPLBD group, and 948 patients in ESLBD group) were included. The SCR was significantly higher in ESLBD compared to EST risk ratio [RR]: 1.11, [confidence interval] CI: 1.00-1.24). Lower need for ML was noted for ESLBD (RR: 0.48, CI: 0.31-0.74) and EPLBD (RR: 0.58, CI: 0.34-0.98) compared to EST. All other outcomes including bleeding, perforation, post-ERCP pancreatitis, stone recurrence, cholecystitis, cholangitis, and mortality did not show significant difference between the three groups. Based on network ranking, ESLBD was superior in terms of SCR as well as lower need for ML and adverse events (AEs). Conclusions  Based on network meta-analysis, ESLBD seems to be superior with higher SCR and lower need for ML and AEs for large CBD stones.

Analysis of Clinical Effects of Intubation and Sphincterotomy With Wire-guided Incision Knife Plus Balloon Dilatation in the Treatment of Choledocholithiasis: A Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

To investigate the clinical effects of intubation and sphincterotomy with wire-guided incision knife plus balloon dilatation (ISBD) in the treatment of choledocholithiasis, a randomized controlled trial was conducted.

METHODS

A total of 270 patients with choledocholithiasis confirmed by computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging from January 2016 to July 2018 in our hospital were enrolled in the research. All patients were randomly divided into 3 groups: ISBD group, endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) group, and endoscopic sphincterotomy plus balloon dilation group, respectively. The clinical effects, complications, and inflammation indexes of the 3 groups were detected. SPSS software was used for statistics and analysis of results.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in basic characteristics of the 3 groups. Although there was no significant difference in the total stone clearance rate among the 3 groups, the first stone clearance rate and the large stone clearance rate in ISBD group were significantly higher than those in EST group. Compared with the other 2 groups, the total operation time and complications in ISBD group were significant lower. The serum levels of interleukin-6, C-reactive protein (CRP), procalcitonin (PCT), carbohydrate antigen 19-9, and carcinoembryonic antigen in ISBD group were significant lower than those in EST group, and CRP and PCT in ISBD group were markedly lower than those in endoscopic sphincterotomy plus balloon dilation group.

CONCLUSIONS

ISBD treatment simplifies the operation procedure, shortens the operation time, reduces postoperative inflammation and complications, and makes ERCP stone removal simpler, safer, and more efficient for patients with common bile duct stones.

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.

Long-term effects of endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation in patients with challenging bile duct calculi: A retrospective observational study

Endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation (EPLBD) can be used to treat challenging common bile duct stones. No previous studies have reported intractable cases treated either by EPLBD or mechanical lithotripter use. We aimed to evaluate and compare the long-term effects of EPLBD with mechanical lithotripter use.This retrospective cohort study reviewed data from 153 patients admitted to the Eastern Chiba Medical Center from April 2014 to March 2020, presenting with common bile duct calculi that could not be removed using a basket or balloon catheter. Patients were divided into groups depending on whether the treatment was performed using a mechanical lithotripter or EPLBD. The primary outcome was the recurrence rate of common bile duct calculi, and the secondary outcome was the rate of postoperative adverse events. The Wilcoxon test was used to compare the 2 groups. Statistical significance was set at P < .05.The median age of patients included in the lithotripter and EPLBD groups were 73 years and 83 years, respectively (P = .006), while the sex ratio (male:female) in the groups was 18:13 and 55:67, respectively. The EPLBD group showed a statistically larger median bile duct diameter (13 mm [range: 8-24 mm] vs 11 mm [range: 5-16 mm]; P < .001), larger maximal calculus diameter (median, 13.5 mm [range: 8-25 mm] vs 11 mm [range: 7-16 mm]; P < .001), and shorter median cumulative treatment time after reaching the duodenal papilla (35.5 minutes [range: 10-176 minutes] vs 47 minutes [range: 22-321 minutes]; P = .026) in comparison to the lithotripter group. There was no significant difference in the rate of adverse events between the EPLBD and the mechanical lithotripter groups. The recurrence rate was significantly lower (P = .014) in the EPLBD group.EPLBD increases therapeutic efficacy and reduces treatment duration for patients in whom calculus removal is difficult, without increasing the frequency of adverse events. No serious adverse events were observed. Additionally, EPLBD appears to reduce the risk of long-term recurrence. Future studies are needed to evaluate long-term outcomes in younger patients.

Intelligent difficulty scoring and assistance system for endoscopic extraction of common bile duct stones based on deep learning: multicenter study

BACKGROUND

The study aimed to construct an intelligent difficulty scoring and assistance system (DSAS) for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) treatment of common bile duct (CBD) stones.

METHODS

1954 cholangiograms were collected from three hospitals for training and testing the DSAS. The D-LinkNet34 and U-Net were adopted to segment the CBD, stones, and duodenoscope. Based on the segmentation results, the stone size, distal CBD diameter, distal CBD arm, and distal CBD angulation were estimated. The performance of segmentation and estimation was assessed by mean intersection over union (mIoU) and average relative error. A technical difficulty scoring scale, which was used for assessing the technical difficulty of CBD stone removal, was developed and validated. We also analyzed the relationship between scores evaluated by the DSAS and clinical indicators including stone clearance rate and need for endoscopic papillary large-balloon dilation (EPLBD) and lithotripsy.

RESULTS

The mIoU values of the stone, CBD, and duodenoscope segmentation were 68.35 %, 86.42 %, and 95.85 %, respectively. The estimation performance of the DSAS was superior to nonexpert endoscopists. In addition, the technical difficulty scoring performance of the DSAS was more consistent with expert endoscopists than two nonexpert endoscopists. A DSAS assessment score ≥ 2 was correlated with lower stone clearance rates and more frequent EPLBD.

CONCLUSIONS

An intelligent DSAS based on deep learning was developed. The DSAS could assist endoscopists by automatically scoring the technical difficulty of CBD stone extraction, and guiding the choice of therapeutic approach and appropriate accessories during ERCP.

Best Procedure for the Management of Common Bile Duct Stones via the Papilla: Literature Review and Analysis of Procedural Efficacy and Safety

Background: Endoscopic management of common bile duct stones (CBDS) is standard; however, various techniques are performed via the papilla, and the best procedure in terms of both efficacy and safety has not been determined. Methods: Endoscopic procedures were classified into five categories according to endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) and balloon dilation (BD): (1) EST, (2) endoscopic papillary BD (≤10 mm) (EPBD), (3) EST followed by BD (≤10 mm) (ESBD), (4) endoscopic papillary large BD (≥12 mm) (EPLBD), and (5) EST followed by large BD (≥12 mm) (ESLBD). We performed a literature review of prospective and retrospective studies to compare efficacy and adverse events (AEs). Each procedure was associated with different efficacy and AE profiles. Results: In total, 19 prospective and seven retrospective studies with a total of 3930 patients were included in this study. For EST, the complete stone removal rate at the first session, rate of mechanical lithotripsy (ML), and rate of overall AEs in EST were superior to EPBD, but a higher rate of bleeding was found for EST. Based on one retrospective study, complete stone removal rate at the first session, rate of ML, and rate of overall AEs were superior for ESBD vs. EST, and the rate of bleeding for the former was also lower. Complete stone removal rate at the first session and rate of ML for ESLBD were superior to those for EST, with no significant difference in rate of AEs. For EST vs. EPLBD, complete stone removal rate at the first session and rate of ML were superior for the latter. For EPLBD vs. ESLBD, the efficacy and safety were similar. Conclusions: ESBD is considered the best procedure for the management of small CBDS, but strong evidence is lacking. For large CBDS, both ESLBD and EPLBD are similar.

Multicenter randomized trial of endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation without sphincterotomy versus endoscopic sphincterotomy for removal of bile duct stones: MARVELOUS trial

BACKGROUND : Endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation (EPLBD) has been increasingly used for the management of large common bile duct (CBD) stones. Although EPLBD is often preceded by endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST), EPLBD alone without EST has been increasingly reported as an alternative to EST for large CBD stones. METHODS : This multicenter randomized trial was conducted at 19 Japanese institutions to compare the efficacy and safety of EPLBD alone versus EST for the removal of large (≥ 10 mm) CBD stones. The primary end point was complete stone removal in a single session. The secondary end points included: overall complete stone removal, lithotripsy use, procedure time, adverse events, and cost. RESULTS:  171 patients with large CBD stones were included in the analysis. The rate of single-session complete stone removal was significantly higher in the EPLBD-alone group than in the EST group (90.7 % vs. 78.8 %; P = 0.04). Lithotripsy use was significantly less frequent in the EPLBD group than in the EST group (30.2 % vs. 48.2 %; P = 0.02). The rates of early adverse events were comparable between the two groups: rates of overall adverse events were 9.3 % vs. 9.4 % and of pancreatitis were 4.7 % vs. 5.9 % in the EPLBD and EST groups, respectively. The procedure costs were $1442 vs. $1661 in the EPLBD and EST groups, respectively (P = 0.12). CONCLUSION : EPLBD without EST for the endoscopic treatment of large CBD stones achieved a significantly higher rate of complete stone removal in a single session compared with EST, without increasing adverse events.

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.

Evaluation of the safety and efficacy of minimal endoscopic sphincterotomy followed by papillary balloon dilation for the removal of common bile duct stones

BACKGROUND/AIM

A sufficiently open papilla is needed to remove common bile duct stones (CBDS) but endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) requires a high level of skill and is difficult with endoscopic papillary balloon dilation (EPBD). The main adverse event of EST is bleeding and perforation and that of EPBD is post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis. To reduce these adverse events we employed minimal EST followed by papillary dilation (ESBD), and retrospectively evaluated its efficacy and safety compared with EST.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

CBDS patients who underwent EST (n = 114) or ESBD (n = 321) at Juntendo University Hospital from January 2009 to December 2018 were consecutively enrolled, retrospectively. The exclusion criteria were large-balloon dilation (≥ 12 mm), large CBDS (>12 mm), and previous EST/EPBD. We compared the overall stone removal rate, incidence of adverse event, procedure time, number of ERCP procedures, and rate of mechanical lithotripsy (ML) between the two groups.

RESULTS

Complete stone removal was successful in both ESBD and EST group. However, the rate of multiple ERCP sessions was significantly lower (35.1% vs. 12.8%, P < 0.001), procedure time was shorter (31.6 vs. 25.8 min, P = 0.01), and rate of ML was lower (16.7% vs. 7.8%, P = 0.01) in ESBD group. Bleeding was significantly more frequent in the EST group (9.6% vs. 1.2%, P < 0.001), particularly acute bleeding (7.9% vs. 0.9%, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

ESBD is more efficient and safer in the management of CBD stones than EST. A prospective randomized study comparing ESBD with EST is needed to establish this combination technique.

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.

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.

Complications of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: an imaging review

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) has currently become an inseparable tool in the gastroenterologist's armamentarium for treatment of pancreaticobiliary disorders. Given the increase in number of therapeutic ERCP procedures today, the need for prompt and correct diagnosis of its complications is pivotal. This review discusses the mechanisms, risk factors, imaging findings and general management aspects of common and rare complications of ERCP. Furthermore, the review elaborates on imaging indications, recommended protocol and normal imaging findings post ERCP.

ASGE guideline on the role of endoscopy in the evaluation and management of choledocholithiasis

Each year choledocholithiasis results in biliary obstruction, cholangitis, and pancreatitis in a significant number of patients. The primary treatment, ERCP, is minimally invasive but associated with adverse events in 6% to 15%. This American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) Standard of Practice (SOP) Guideline provides evidence-based recommendations for the endoscopic evaluation and treatment of choledocholithiasis. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework was used to rigorously review and synthesize the contemporary literature regarding the following topics: EUS versus MRCP for diagnosis, the role of early ERCP in gallstone pancreatitis, endoscopic papillary dilation after sphincterotomy versus sphincterotomy alone for large bile duct stones, and impact of ERCP-guided intraductal therapy for large and difficult choledocholithiasis. Comprehensive systematic reviews were also performed to assess the following: same-admission cholecystectomy for gallstone pancreatitis, clinical predictors of choledocholithiasis, optimal timing of ERCP vis-à-vis cholecystectomy, management of Mirizzi syndrome and hepatolithiasis, and biliary stent therapy for choledocholithiasis. Core clinical questions were derived using an iterative process by the ASGE SOP Committee. This body developed all recommendations founded on the certainty of the evidence, balance of risks and harms, consideration of stakeholder preferences, resource utilization, and cost-effectiveness.

Endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation without sphincterotomy for users of antithrombotic agents: A multicenter retrospective study

BACKGROUND AND AIM

With an aging population, an increasing number of individuals on antithrombotic agents are diagnosed with large bile duct stones. Studies have shown the effectiveness of endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation (EPLBD) for removal of large bile duct stones. EPLBD without endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) may reduce the risk of procedure-related bleeding, but the safety of this procedure for users of antithrombotic agents remains unclear.

METHODS

In this multicenter retrospective study, we included patients who underwent EPLBD without EST for bile duct stones between March 2008 and December 2017. We compared adverse events and other clinical outcomes between users and non-users of antithrombotic agents (antiplatelet agents and anticoagulants).

RESULTS

We analyzed a total of 144 patients (47 users and 97 non-users of antithrombotic agents). Among the users, the agents were continued in 13% and were replaced with heparin in 62% during the periprocedural period. We did not observe clinically significant bleeding and thrombotic events irrespective of the use of antithrombotic agents. Overall rate of early adverse events did not differ between users and non-users (6.4% and 7.2%, P = 0.99). Procedural outcomes did not differ between the groups (necessity for lithotripsy, 28% vs. 29%; and complete stone removal in a single session, 72% vs. 71%, for users and non-users, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation without EST may be done without a substantial increase in procedure-related bleeding for users of antithrombotic agents. A larger study is required to refine the management strategy for those agents during the periprocedural period.

Large Balloon Dilatation Versus Mechanical Lithotripsy After Endoscopic Sphincterotomy in the Management of Large Common Bile Duct Stones in Cirrhotic Patients: A Randomized Study

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIM

Removal of large common bile duct (CBD) stones is one of the challenges faced during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, and it seems more difficult in cirrhotic patients because of suspected higher rates of adverse events, especially bleeding diathesis. This study aimed at comparing the success rate and complications between mechanical lithotripsy (ML) and large balloon dilation (LBD) after endoscopic sphincterotomy in patients with liver cirrhosis.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Ninety-eight cirrhotic patients with calcular obstructive jaundice were included and randomly divided into 2 groups: group A comprising 49 patients treated by LBD and group B comprising 49 patients treated by ML. All patients underwent sphincterotomy initially. All patients were subjected to thorough history taking and complete clinical examination. Pancreatic enzyme concentrations were measured 4 hours before and 24 hours after the procedure, and complete blood cell count and liver function tests were performed before and the morning after the procedure. Before and during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, stone size and number were verified.

RESULTS

The success rate for CBD clearance was 98% and 93.8% for LBD and ML, respectively. The rate of adverse events in this study was 10.2% (10/98), and bleeding was the commonest reported complication (5/10). Group B developed more (16.3%) adverse events than group A (4.1%), and the difference was statistically significant (P=0.04).

CONCLUSION

Endoscopic sphincterotomy followed by LBD is a safe and effective treatment for large CBD stones in cirrhotic patients in comparison with sphincterotomy followed by ML.

Endoscopic Management of Complex Biliary Stone Disease

Choledocholithiasis is a common disorder that is managed universally by endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). For difficult or complex stones, ERCP with conventional techniques may fail to achieve biliary clearance in 10% to 15% of cases. This review summarizes the literature regarding the current available endoscopic techniques for complex stone disease, including mechanical lithotripsy, endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation, cholangioscopy-guided lithotripsy, and endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary access.

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.

Endoscopic papillary large balloon dilatation for the extraction of common bile duct stones

BACKGROUND AND AIM

endoscopic papillary large balloon dilatation (EPLBD) is increasingly accepted as an appropriate option for the management of difficult common bile duct stones (CBDS). This study aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of EPLBD with a relatively large balloon (15-20 mm) for the extraction of difficult CBDS.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

a total of 40 patients were recruited with obstructive jaundice and dilated CBD (≥ 10 mm) subsequent to a single large CBDS of ≥ 10 mm or multiple stones (≥ 3). All patients underwent endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography (ERCP) with limited sphincterotomy and large balloon dilatation followed by stone extraction using an extraction balloon or dormia basket, without lithotripsy, stenting or further ERCP sessions.

RESULTS

successful stone extraction was achieved in 34 patients (85%) and stone extraction failure occurred in six patients (15%). Complications included minimal pancreatitis in four cases (10%), mild pancreatitis in two cases (5%), cholangitis in two cases (5%) and bleeding in two cases (5%). There were no recorded cases of perforation or mortality subsequent to the procedure.

CONCLUSION

EPLBD is a safe and efficient procedure for the extraction of difficult CBDS and may be advisable in patients with a bleeding risk or abnormal papillary anatomy.

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.

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.

Comparison of late adverse events after endoscopic sphincterotomy versus endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation for common bile duct stones: A propensity score-based cohort analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Endoscopic sphincterotomy (ES) is a standard procedure for the treatment of common bile duct stones (CBDS). Endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation (EPLBD) is emerging as an effective method to treat difficult CBDS, providing several advantages over ES without increasing early adverse events (AE). However, the late AE of EPLBD have not yet been well studied. The aim of the present study was to compare late AE after EPLBD versus ES for the treatment of CBDS using a propensity score-based cohort analysis.

METHODS

Propensity score matching was introduced to reduce the possible bias in baseline characteristics between two treatment groups and formed the matched cohort including 240 patients. Primary endpoint was cumulative as well as estimated 1-year and 3-year late AE rates. Secondary outcome was the incidence of early AE.

RESULTS

Cumulative late AE rates were 12.5% and 16.7% in the ELPBD and ES groups (P = 0.936) with a median follow-up period of 915.5 and 1544.5 days, respectively. Estimated 1-year and 3-year late AE rates were 8.4% and 13.1% in the EPLBD group and 5.0% and 15.0% in the ES group, respectively. In multivariate analysis, ≥two procedures were identified as independent risk factors for late AE. Overall early AE rate did not differ between the groups.

CONCLUSION

In the present study, late AE rate after EPLBD showed no significant difference compared with that after ES, which had a relatively long follow-up period. Therefore, EPLBD could be used for the treatment of CBDS, if CBDS are considered difficult to treat. Clinical Trial Registry: UMIN000027798.

Advanced ERCP techniques for the extraction of complex biliary stones: a single referral center's 12-year experience

OBJECTIVES

Advanced ERCP techniques (AETs) for difficult biliary stones include peroral cholangioscopy (POC) with electrohydraulic/laser lithotripsy (EHL/LL), endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation (EPLBD) and mechanical lithotripsy (ML). We assess the efficacy of AETs.

METHODS

A retrospective query for AETs.

PRIMARY OUTCOME

Complete duct clearance. Secondary outcome: Complete duct clearance by technique. Statistical Analysis version 9.3 (SAS Inc., Cary, NC).

RESULTS

From 1/00 to 10/12, 349 patients were identified of which 222 (80% had prior ERCPs) had AETs. 211 with sufficient follow-up underwent 295 ERCPs; 280 of which were AET's. Index AETs: POC with EHL/LL (n = 46/211, 22%), ML (n = 84/211, 40%), EPLBD with mean balloon size of 11.5 ± 1.7 mm (n = 39/211, 18%) and combination AETs (n = 42/211, 20%). Stone characteristics: 76% had ≥1 stone, 81% extrahepatic and 32% had strictures. Number of stones (mean 2.5 and range 1-20) did not differ among groups. EPLBD had higher percentage (95%) of extrahepatic stones (p = .0003). The 'Combination' and 'POC' groups had larger stones (mean 17.7 mm ±6.4 and 16.8 mm ±6.1, respectively; p < .001). Complete clearance: 209/211 (99%) at index AET 167/211 (79%) or after mean of 2.5 ± 0.7 AETs in 42/211 (20%). Partial clearance: 2/211 (1%). Clearance at index AETs was higher with EPLBD (90%, p = .014). Adverse Events: 7/280 (2.5%).

CONCLUSIONS

AETs achieved clearance in 99%. EPLBD had higher clearance at index AET likely owing to higher extrahepatic stones. Larger stones, but not number, were associated with increased combination AETs and total ERCPs.

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.

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.

Comparative efficacy of various endoscopic techniques for the treatment of common bile duct stones: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Although various endoscopic techniques have been introduced for successful removal of common bile duct (CBD) stones, the optimal method is not yet clear. We aimed to compare the efficacy of different endoscopic techniques for CBD stone removal.

METHODS

We searched for all relevant randomized controlled trials published until June 2017, examining the outcomes of endoscopic techniques for CBD stone removal, including endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST), endoscopic papillary balloon dilatation (EPBD), and EST with balloon dilatation (ESBD). A Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed.

RESULTS

Twenty-five studies with 3726 patients were included in the meta-analysis. ESBD had a higher successful rate of stone removal in the first endoscopic session than EPBD (odds ratio [OR] [95% credible interval {CrI}], 2.09 [1.07-4.16]). Mechanical lithotripsy was less common in ESBD than in EPBD (OR [95% CrI], .45 [.25-.83]). EPBD revealed a lower risk of bleeding than both EST and ESBD (OR [95% CrI], vs EST, .06 [.008-.23]; vs ESBD, .12 [.01-.64]). The pooled incidences of bleeding were 3.0% (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.8%-5.2%), 1.1% (95% CI, .6%-2.0%), and 2.0% (95% CI, .9%-4.4%) in the EST, EPBD, and ESBD groups, respectively. Pancreatitis tended to be more common in EPBD than in both EST and ESBD (OR [95% CrI]: vs EST, 1.49 [.84-2.59]; vs ESBD, 1.49 [.61-3.57]).

CONCLUSION

The efficacy of ESBD in stone removal during the first endoscopic session was superior to that of EPBD. Pancreatitis in ESBD and EST tended to be less common than in EPBD, although this difference was not statistically significant. However, ESBD and EST carried a higher risk of bleeding than EPBD.

Endoscopic papillary large balloon dilatation with sphincterotomy is safe and effective for biliary stone removal independent of timing and size of sphincterotomy

AIM

To describe the efficacy and safety of endoscopic papillary large balloon dilatation (EPLBD) in the management of bile duct stones in a Western population.

METHODS

Data was collected from the endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and Radiology electronic database along with a review of case notes over a period of six years from 1^st August 2009 to 31^st July 2015 and incorporated into Microsoft excel. Statistical analyses were performed using MedCalc for Windows, version 12.5 (MedCalc Software, Ostend, Belgium). Simple statistical applications were applied in order to determine whether significant differences exist in comparison groups. We initially used simple proportions to describe the study populations. Furthermore, we used chi-square test to compare proportions and categorical variables. Non-parametric Mann-Whitney U-test was applied in order to compare continuous variables. All comparisons were deemed to be statistically significant if P values were less than 0.05.

RESULTS

EPLBD was performed in 229 patients (46 females) with mean age of 68 ± 14.3 years. 115/229 (50%) patients had failed duct clearance at previous ERCP referred from elsewhere with standard techniques. Duct clearance at the Index* ERCP (1^st ERCP at our centre) was 72.5%. Final duct clearance rate was 98%. EPLBD after fresh sphincterotomy was performed in 81 (35.4%). Median balloon size was 13.5 mm (10 - 18). In addition to EPLBD, per-oral cholangioscopy (POC) and electrohydraulic lithotripsy (EHL) was performed in 35 (15%) patients at index* ERCP. 63 (27.5%) required repeat ERCP for stone clearance. 28 (44.5%) required POC and EHL and 11 (17.4%) had repeat EPLBD for complete duct clearance. Larger stone size (12.4 mm vs 17.4 mm, P < 0.000001), multiple stones (2, range (1-13) vs 3, range (1-12), P < 0.006) and dilated common bile duct (CBD) (12.4 mm vs 18.3 mm, P < 0.001) were significant predictors of failed duct clearance at index ERCP. 47 patients (20%) had ampullary or peri-ampullary diverticula. Procedure related adverse events included 2 cases of bleeding and pancreatitis (0.87%) each.

CONCLUSION

EPLBD is a safe and effective technique for CBDS removal. There is no difference in outcomes whether it is performed at the time of sphincterotomy or at a later procedure or whether there is a full or limited sphincterotomy.

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.

Outcome of a session of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy before endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography for problematic and large common bile duct stones

AIM

To compare the efficacy of a session of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) before endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) vs ERCP only for problematic and large common bile duct (CBD) stones.

METHODS

Adult patients with CBD stones for whom initial ERCP was unsuccessful because of the large size of CBD stones were identified. The patients were randomized into two groups, an “ESWL + ERCP group” and an “ERCP-only” group. For ESWL + ERCP cases, ESWL was performed prior to ERCP. Clearance of the CBD, complications related to the ESWL/ERCP procedure, frequency of mechanical lithotripsy use and duration of the ERCP procedure were evaluated in both groups.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in baseline characteristics between the two groups. A session of ESWL before ERCP compared with ERCP only resulted in similar outcomes in terms of successful stone removal within the first treatment session (74.2% vs 71.0%, P = 0.135), but a higher clearance rate within the second treatment session (84.4% vs 51.6%, P = 0.018) and total stone clearance (96.0% vs 86.0%, P = 0.029). Moreover, ESWL prior to ERCP not only reduced ERCP procedure time (43 ± 21 min vs 59 ± 28 min, P = 0.034) and the rate of mechanical lithotripsy use (20% vs 30%, P = 0.025), but also raised the clearance rate of extremely large stones (80.0% vs 40.0%, P = 0.016). Post-ERCP complications were similar for the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Based on the higher rate of successful stone removal and minimal complications, ESWL prior to ERCP appears to be a safe and effective treatment for the endoscopic removal of problematic and large CBD stones.

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.

Influence of periampullary diverticulum on the occurrence of pancreaticobiliary diseases and outcomes of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Periampullary diverticulum (PAD) is frequently encountered in patients undergoing endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). The aim of this study was to investigate the association of PAD with pancreaticobiliary diseases as well as the impact of PAD on the technical success of ERCP and different methods of bile duct stone extraction.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A total of 1489 cases of patients with PAD were identified from 6390 patients who underwent ERCP. These patients were compared with 1500 controls without PAD in terms of biliary stone formation, technical success, and complications of ERCP.

RESULTS

Patients with PAD had increased prevalence of bile duct stones, gallstones, and cholangitis (P<0.01). Successful cannulation rates were similar in the PAD and the control group (98.59 vs. 99.07%, P=0.225). The incidence of complications did not differ between the PAD and the control group. Successful stone removal rate of endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) was lower in the PAD group than in the control group (83.53 vs. 94.31%, P=0.005). In patients with PAD, the rate of successful stone removal was lower in the EST group than in the endoscopic papillary balloon dilation (EPBD) and EPBD combined with limited EST (ESBD) group. The rates of complications were similar among different treatments (EST, EPBD, or ESBD) in patients with PAD.

CONCLUSION

PAD is associated with bile duct stones, gallstones, and cholangitis. In addition, PAD should not be considered a barrier to a successful cannulation. Moreover, EST is less effective than EPBD and ESBD in patients with PAD, whereas EST, EPBD, and ESBD are equally safe in patients with PAD.

A review of treatment options for bile duct stones

Approximately 10-15% of bile duct stones cannot be treated using conventional stone removal techniques. For difficult common bile duct stones (CBDS), various endoscopic techniques have been developed. This review covers technical tips and endoscopic treatments including Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), particularly under Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) guidance. Areas covered: Literatures about endoscopic treatment for bile duct stone were searched in Pub Med. As novel methods, EUS-guided approaches have also been reported, although long-term results and prospective evaluation are not yet sufficient. Large stones may need fragmentation prior to removal, to prevent stone impaction. To perform fragmentation, mechanical lithotripsy, extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy or laser lithotripsy techniques are available. Expert commentary: Despite the fact that most bile duct stones can be treated using endoscopic techniques, endoscopists should remind to be able to select the temporary biliary stenting or percutaneous transhepatic cholangiodrainage as an option.

Efficacy and safety of endoscopic papillary balloon dilation for the removal of bile duct stones: Data from a “real-life” multicenter study on Dilation-Assisted Stone Extraction

AIM

To report data on Dilation-Assisted Stone Extraction (DASE) use in clinical practice and its efficacy and safety trough three Italian referral centers for biliopancreatic diseases treatment.

METHODS

From January 2011 to December 2015 we collected data on 120 patients treated with DASE. Technical success was obtained when the endoscopist was able to place the balloon trough the papilla inflating the balloon until the final diameter for an adequate time (at least 30 s). Clinical success was obtained after complete stone removal (no remaining stones were visible at the cholangiogram).

RESULTS

Forty-nine male (40.8%) and 71 female (59%) were enrolled. The mean age was 67.8 years ± 15.7. The mean common bile duct (CBD) dilation was 19.2 mm ± 3.9 and the mean size of stones 15.8 ± 2.9. DASE was applied as first approach in 38% (62% after initial failure of stones extraction). Technical and clinical success was of 91% and 87% respectively. In those in which DASE failed alternative treatment were adopted. After DASE 18% of patients experienced a complication (bleeding 9%, pancreatitis 8%, perforation 0.8%). At univariable analysis, elective endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (P = 0.031), DASE as first approach (P = 0.032), and cannulation of major papilla followed by guidewire insertion (P = 0.004) were related to low risk of complications. Pre-cut was related to an increased risk of complications (P = 0.01).

CONCLUSION

DASE allowed a higher first-session success rate and can be consider a valid alternative to endoscopic sphincterotomy not only for bigger CBD stones.

Prior minimal endoscopic sphincterotomy to prevent pancreatitis related to endoscopic balloon sphincteroplasty

AIM

To investigate the efficacy of prior minimal endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) to prevent pancreatitis related to endoscopic balloon sphincteroplasty (EBS).

METHODS

After bile duct access was gained and cholangiogram confirmed the presence of stones < 8 mm in the common bile duct at endoscopic retrograde cholangiography, patients were subjected to minimal EST (up to one-third of the size the papilla) plus 8 mm EBS (EST-EBS group). The incidence of pancreatitis and the difference in serum amylase level after the procedure were examined and compared with those associated with 8-mm EBS alone in 32 patients of historical control (control group).

RESULTS

One hundred and five patients were included in the EST-EBS group, and complete stone removal was accomplished in all of them. The difference in serum amylase level after the procedure was - 25.0 (217.9) IU/L in the EST-EBS group and this value was significantly lower than the 365.5 (576.3) IU/L observed in the control group (P < 0.001). The incidence of post-procedure pancreatitis was 0% (0/105) in the EST-EBS group and 15.6% (5/32) in the control group (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Prior minimal EST might be useful to prevent the elevation of serum amylase level and the occurrence of pancreatitis related to EBS.

Long-term recurrence of bile duct stones after endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation with sphincterotomy: 4-year extended follow-up of a randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation with biliary sphincterotomy (EPLBD + EBS) is safe and effective in patients with large common bile duct (CBD) stones. However, data on long-term outcomes after EPLBD + EBS remain limited. We sought to prospectively evaluate the long-term recurrence of CBD stones after EPLBD + EBS and to identify the associated factors.

METHODS

We conducted an extended follow-up of a previous randomized trial (2009-2011) comparing the outcomes of 30- versus 60-s large balloon dilation. A total of 106 trial participants undergoing successful CBD stone clearance by EPLBD + EBS were prospectively followed up for up to 4 years (range 19-48 months). Various risk factors were analysed to assess predictors of long-term recurrence of stones.

RESULTS

Recurrent CBD stones appeared in 8/106 (7.5 %) patients during a mean follow-up of 30.5 ± 5.5 months. The mean diameter of CBD was significantly higher in the recurrence versus non-recurrence group (2.0 ± 4.9 vs 1.6 ± 0.9 cm, p = 0.008). Multivariate analysis revealed that CBD diameter was the only predictor significantly associated with the long-term recurrence of stones (odds ratio 1.2, p = 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

EPLBD + EBS is associated with a low rate of long-term CBD stone recurrence. However, the risk is significantly higher in patients with a more dilated CBD.

Significance of Endoscopic Sphincterotomy Preceding Endoscopic Papillary Large Balloon Dilation in the Management of Bile Duct Stones

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation (EPLBD) is safe and effective in management of common bile duct stones (CBDS). Endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) prior to EPLBD has been performed as a standard procedure. However, the significance of EST prior to EPLBD has not been well studied yet.

AIMS

To compare the clinical outcomes of EPLBD with and without EST to evaluate the significance of EST.

METHODS

Between April 2010 and March 2015, a total of 82 patients with naïve papillae underwent EPLBD with or without EST for the management of CBDS. A retrospective analysis compared the efficacy and safety of EPLBD with and without EST.

RESULTS

Basic patient characteristics were not significantly different between the groups that underwent EPLBD with EST (n = 27) and without EST (n = 55). Complete stone removal rates were similar between the groups (100 % in the EST group and 98 % in the non-EST group, p = 1.00). There was no significant difference in the median balloon size (13 mm in both groups, p = 0.445), rate of application of mechanical lithotripsy (26 vs. 35 % in the EST and non-EST groups, respectively, p = 0.463), or the median procedure time (38 vs. 34 min in the EST and non-EST groups, respectively, p = 0.682). The overall adverse event rates were not statistically different (4 vs. 7 % in the EST and non-EST groups, respectively, p = 1.00). Pancreatitis, cholangitis, and hemorrhage rates were also similar in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

EST prior to EPLBD may be unnecessary since this study did not demonstrate its benefits.

Efficacy and Safety of Endoscopic Papillary Large Balloon Dilation for Removal of Large Bile Duct Stones in Advanced Age

Objective. Bile duct stone-related adverse events can be detrimental in the elderly. However, little is known about clinical outcomes and adverse events following endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation (EPLBD) in the elderly. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and feasibility of EPLBD for the removal of CBD stones in patients aged ≥ 80 years. Methods. A total of 204 patients who underwent EPLBD from 2006 to 2012 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were classified into two groups (148 patients < 80 years old, Group A; 56 patients ≥ 80 years old, Group B). Endoscopic findings, clinical outcomes, and adverse events in two groups were compared. Results. The number of underlying chronic diseases in Group B was significantly higher than in Group A (P = 0.032). The rates of overall stone clearance were similar between two groups (P = 0.145). No significant difference with regard to post-ERCP pancreatitis between two groups was observed (P = 0.687). All episodes of pancreatitis had full recovery with conservative treatment. One major hemorrhage in Group A was successfully controlled endoscopically and one death caused by retroperitoneal perforation occurred in Group A. Conclusions. EPLBD appear to be safe and effective for CBD stone removal in patients aged ≥ 80 years.

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.