Impact of endoscopic sphincter dilation on papillary structure: a case report

Endoscopic papillary balloon dilation for removal of choledocholithiasis: indications, advantages, complications, and long-term follow-up results

Endoscopic papillary balloon dilation (EPBD) is an alternative method of endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST). Although concerns regarding post-procedure pancreatitis have been expressed, EPBD has come to be recognized as an effective and safe method for stone removal in specific cases. To analyze the proper indications, ideal methods, complications, and long-term follow-up results for EPBD, we reviewed articles about EPBD located through a search of the PubMed data base. We analyzed the ballooning methods, indications, results and complications of EPBD among the articles found and compared the results with those of EST. We considered the authors' own clinical experience and knowledge in developing recommendations for EPBD. EPBD showed similar efficacy and safety for the removal of choledocholithiasis to that of EST. Although large or multiple stones were difficult to remove by EPBD, it was safer and easier to apply in patients with coagulopathy or abnormal anatomy. To prevent severe pancreatitis, excessive ballooning and impractical cannulation should be avoided, and precut sphincterotomy or adjuvant prophylaxis should be considered. Due to its preservation of the sphincter of Oddi, EPBD is expected to have fewer long-term complications, such as stone recurrence, cholangitis and cholecystitis. In conclusion, EPBD appears to be safe and effective for the treatment of choledocholithiasis with proper selection of ballooning methods and patients.

Endoscopic balloon dilation of the biliary sphincter compared to endoscopic biliary sphincterotomy for removal of common bile duct stones during ERCP: a metaanalysis of randomized, controlled trials

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effect of endoscopic balloon dilation (EPBD) of the papilla with that of endoscopic biliary sphincterotomy (EST) in the treatment of patients with common bile duct stones.

METHODS

Searches of computerized bibliographic and scientific citations, and review of citations in relevant primary articles. Eight fully published prospective, randomized trials in English that compared EPBD with EST for the removal of common bile duct stones were subjected to metaanalysis.

RESULTS

EPBD compared with EST resulted in similar outcomes with regards to overall successful stone removal (94.3% vs 96.5%) and overall complications (10.5% vs 10.3%). Bleeding occurred less frequently with EPBD (0% vs 2.0%, p = 0.001). Post-ERCP pancreatitis occurred more commonly in the EPBD group (7.4% vs 4.3%, p = 0.05). No significant differences were seen in the rates of perforation or infection. Patients undergoing EPBD were more likely to require mechanical lithotripsy for stone extraction (20.9% vs 14.8%, p = 0.014).

CONCLUSIONS

On the basis of lower rates of bleeding, EPBD should be the preferred strategy over EST for endoscopic removal of common bile duct stones in patients with coagulopathy. Although EPBD is theoretically attractive for use in young patients for biliary sphincter preservation, the rate of pancreatitis is higher with EPBD and cannot be routinely recommended at this time.

Prognostic factors for recurrence of bile duct stones after endoscopic treatment by sphincter dilation

BACKGROUND

The long-term outcome for patients after endoscopic sphincter of Oddi dilation is poorly documented. This study investigates the recurrence rate for bile duct stones in patients followed for 1 year or more after endoscopic sphincter dilation and stone extraction, and assessed prognostic factors associated with recurrence of ductal calculi.

METHODS

A total of 169 patients with bile duct stones were treated with endoscopic sphincter dilation between July 1998 and August 2001. Follow-up studies consisted of periodic biochemical tests and out-patient evaluations with endoscopic retrograde cholangiography or magnetic resonance cholangiography performed when follow-up exceeded 1 year. Putative risk factors for stone recurrence included gender, age, stone size and number, associated peripapillary diverticulum, gallbladder status, color of bile duct stones, and bile duct diameter. Statistical analysis consisted of both a Kaplan-Meier estimation and a multivariate Cox regression model.

RESULTS

Complete stone clearance was achieved in 162 (95.8%) patients, of whom 151 were followed (13 patients died from unrelated disorders). Mean follow-up was 23 months. Stone recurrence was documented in 13 patients. Patients with dilated bile duct or peripapillary diverticulum were at high risk for recurrence.

CONCLUSIONS

The interval between treatment of bile duct stones by endoscopic sphincter dilation and the recurrence of biliary calculi is relatively short. Bile duct size and peripapillary diverticula are risk factors for early recurrence.

Stent placement in the pancreatic duct prevents pancreatitis after endoscopic sphincter dilation for removal of bile duct stones

BACKGROUND

Pancreatitis is the most serious complication of endoscopic sphincter dilation. The aim of this study was to determine whether temporary stent placement in the main pancreatic duct decreases the frequency of pancreatitis and level of hyperamylasemia.

METHODS

Stents were placed in the pancreatic duct after endoscopic sphincter dilation in 40 consecutive patients with bile duct stones. Stents were removed endoscopically 3 days later. Changes in serum amylase and the frequency of pancreatitis for this group were compared with those in 92 patients who underwent sphincter dilation without pancreatic duct stent placement.

RESULTS

Stent placement was successful in 38 of 40 patients. Although the difference in the frequency of pancreatitis was not significantly different between stent and control groups, there was a trend toward a decrease in pancreatitis in the stent group. The level of postprocedure hyperamylasemia was significantly less in the stent group (p < 0.05). There were no procedure-related complications.

CONCLUSIONS

Temporary placement of a stent in the pancreatic duct after sphincter dilation for removal of bile duct stones has a beneficial effect in terms of postprocedure hyperamylasemia and appears to reduce the frequency of postprocedure pancreatitis.