Biliary sphincterotomy plus dilation with a large balloon for bile duct stones that are difficult to extract

Perforation of the bile duct caused by endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation: A case report

The patient was a woman in her 70s with multiple large biliary stones. Lithotripsy was attempted after endoscopic papillary large balloon dilatation. During balloon dilation, inflator resistance, and body movement due to patient pain were observed, and maximum pressure was required for the disappearance of the balloon waist. A bile duct perforation was observed when the balloon was deflated. Computed tomography after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography showed free air from the duodenal peritoneum to the right retroperitoneum. The patient was conservatively treated with nasobiliary drainage. Endoscopic large balloon dilatation is useful for large bile duct stones that are difficult to remove using endoscopic sphincterotomy alone or endoscopic papillary balloon dilation. Perforation is a potentially fatal adverse event; therefore, imaging of the intrapancreatic bile ducts should be performed before endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and attention should be paid to the balloon dilation method.

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.

Case Series of Endoscopic Papillary Balloon Dilation for Children with Common Bile Duct Stones and a Review of the Literature

Background: Endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) has been employed for the endoscopic treatment of common bile duct stones (CBDSs) and has been reported to have a high success rate for stone removal. However, EST is associated with a risk of bleeding, perforation, and sphincter of Oddi function disruption. To avoid these risks, endoscopic papillary balloon dilation (EPBD) is an option for CBDS. Sphincter of Oddi function preservation decreases long-term biliary infection and gallstone recurrence. EPBD may have advantages in children who require a long follow up. However, there have been few reports on pediatric cases, particularly in infants. Methods: From September 2017 to December 2023, we performed EPBD for four pediatric CBDSs. The patients were aged from 5 months to 8 years, including two infants aged 5 and 6 months. Furthermore, we reviewed the stone removal rate and complications of 545 ESTs performed at high-volume centers and 13 EPBD-reported cases in children with CBDSs. Results: CBDSs of all patients who underwent EPBD in our institution were successfully removed. No bleeding or perforation was noted; pancreatitis was observed in three patients. In an analysis of 545 ESTs in children, the stone removal rate was high, ranging from 83% to 100% (mean 96%). The incidence of pancreatitis was 0-9.6% (mean 4.4%), and the grade of pancreatitis was almost mild. The bleeding frequency was 1.3-5.4% (mean 2.7%). With regards to the grade of bleeding, seven cases were mild (64%) and four were moderate (36%). Compared with adults who underwent EST, the frequencies of pancreatitis and bleeding were almost equal in children; however, in children, once bleeding occurs, it has a higher risk of leading to blood transfusion. Stone removal via EPBD in children has a 100% success rate. Pancreatitis was responsible for all complications were related; its frequency was 46% (6/13 patients, including five mild cases and one moderate case), which is higher than that of EST and adult cases who underwent EPBD. In most children with pancreatitis, pancreatic enzyme levels returned to normal within 2-3 days following EPBD, and no severe cases caused by EPBD were reported. Conclusions: CBDS removal via EPBD in children has a high success rate with very low risk of bleeding and perforation. Although pancreatitis frequently occurs, most cases are mild. Sphincter of Oddi function preservation via EPBD is expected to prevent long-term stone recurrence and biliary tract infection, and EPBD is considered to be an effective method for CBDS removal in children.

Addition of Mechanical Lithotripsy to Endoscopic Papillary Large Balloon Dilation in Patients with Difficult Common Bile Duct Stones: A Retrospective Single-Center Study

Introduction: This study aimed to compare the treatment outcomes of endoscopic papillary large-balloon dilation (EPLBD) with and without mechanical lithotripsy (ML) in removing difficult common bile duct stones. Methods: Patients with difficult common bile duct stones treated with EPLBD, with or without ML, at the Eastern Chiba Medical Center between April 2014 and March 2020, were retrospectively evaluated. The rates of cumulative recurrence and complications were compared between the two groups. Results: Overall, 122 patients (n = 44, EPLBD + ML and n = 78, EPLBD) treated by 12 gastroenterologists were included. Patients in the EPLBD + ML group were older (85 years versus 81.5 years) and had larger maximum stone diameter (15 mm versus 12.5 mm) than those in the EPLBD group. Compared with the EPLBD group, the EPLBD + ML group required more endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) procedures (≥2) (86% versus 67%) and longer total ERCP time after reaching the papilla (78.5 minutes versus 25 minutes). Complication rates were not significantly different (9.1% versus 12.8%); however, the cumulative recurrence rates were higher in the EPLBD + ML group than in the EPLBD group (69.4% versus 23.5% at 4 years). Conclusion: Although there were no differences in complication rates, the long-term recurrence rate was higher in the EPLBD + ML group than in the EPLBD group. This study emphasizes the added burden imposed by performing ML during ERCP and suggests that by appropriate case selection, it is possible to treat cases of difficult biliary stones using EPLBD without ML.

Endoclip papillaplasty (ECPP) versus limited EST plus EPLBD for a decrease in recurrent choledocholithiasis: a prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Limited EST plus EPLBD has been widely used for the therapy of large CBDS; however, long-term complication-relevant studies suggested that it damaged the function of the sphincter of Oddi (SO) and resulted in recurrent choledocholithiasis. Thus, we designed Endoclip papillaplasty (ECPP) and previous studies have shown that it successfully restored the function of SO. In this study, we designed a prospective cohort and aimed to verify the safety and effectiveness of ECPP.

METHODS

Eligible patients were divided into the ECPP group and the limited EST plus EPLBD group based on papillary morphology and the ratio of maximum size of stones to length of intramural segments of CBD. All participants in the ECPP group received endoscopy at 3 weeks to retrieve the biliary stent, perform SOM, and were divided into grade A and grade B based on the healing grade of SO. All patients were followed up every 6 months until recurrent choledocholithiasis, patient death, or at the 36-month follow-up end. The primary outcome was the incidence of recurrent choledocholithiasis. The secondary outcomes included mechanical lithotrip usage and adverse events.

RESULTS

The incidences of recurrent choledocholithiasis in the ECPP group and limited EST plus EPLBD group were 13.6 and 22.1%, respectively (P = 0.204). The ECPP-A group had a lower incidence of recurrent choledocholithiasis than the limited EST plus EPLBD groups (5.1 vs. 22.1%, P = 0.020*), and certified the function of SO successfully restored in the ECPP-A group.

CONCLUSION

The ECPP-A group had a decrease in recurrent choledocholithiasis, and ECPP was safe and effective for CBDS.

Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for cholelithiasis 2021

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

A Case of Spurting Bleeding After Endoscopic Papillary Balloon Dilation

A 58-year-old male with acute cholangitis due to a common bile duct stone underwent endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography for stone removal with endoscopic papillary balloon dilation (EPBD) due to his high bleeding risk owing to maintenance dialysis and antiplatelet and anticoagulant medications. He had a history of stone removal using an EPBD. The stone was removed; however, the patient subsequently developed spurting bleeding and underwent endoscopic hemostasis. Despite the subsequent mild pancreatitis, he recovered with conservative management. While EPBD is considered a low-risk procedure for bleeding, caution should still be exercised due to the possibility of massive postprocedural bleeding.

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.

Urgent and emergency endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography for gallstone-induced acute cholangitis and pancreatitis

Urgent or emergency endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is indicated for gallstone-induced acute cholangitis and pancreatitis. The technique and optimal timing of ERCP depend on the disease state, its severity, anatomy, patient background, and the institutional situation. Endoscopic transpapillary biliary drainage within 24 h is recommended for moderate to severe acute cholangitis. The clinical outcomes of biliary drainage with nasobiliary drainage tube placement and plastic stent placement are comparable, and the choice is made on a case-by-case basis considering the advantages and disadvantages of each. The addition of endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) is basically not necessary when performing drainage alone, but single-session stone removal following EST is acceptable in mild to moderate cholangitis cases without antithrombotic therapy or coagulopathy. For gallstone pancreatitis, early ERCP/EST are recommended in cases with impacted gallstones in the papilla. In some cases of gallstone pancreatitis, a gallstone impacted in the papilla has already spontaneously passed into the duodenum, and early ERCP/EST lacks efficacy in such cases, with unfavorable findings of cholangitis or cholestasis. If it is difficult to diagnose the presence of gallstones impacted in the papilla on imaging, endoscopic ultrasonography can be useful in determining the indication for ERCP.

Development of clinical prediction rule for the requirement of endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation (EPLBD) on endoscopic CBD stone clearance

INTRODUCTION

To develop a simplified scoring system for clinical prediction of difficulty in CBD stone removal to assist endoscopists working in resource-limited settings in deciding whether to proceed with an intervention or refer patients to a center capable of performing additional procedures and interventions.

METHODS

This study included patients with CBD stones who underwent ERCP at Pattani Hospital between August 2017 and December 2021. Retrospective cohort data was collected and patients were categorized into two groups: bile duct stones successfully treated by endoscopic biliary sphincterotomy and extraction compared to the former method combined with EPLBD. We explored potential predictors using multivariable logistic regression. The chosen logistic coefficients were transformed into a scoring system based on risk with internal validation via bootstrapping procedure.

RESULTS

Among the 155 patients who had successful endoscopic therapy for bile duct stones, there were 79 (50.97%) cases of endoscopic biliary sphincterotomy, EPLBD and extraction versus 76 (49.03%) cases without EPLBD. The factors used to derive a scoring system included the size of CBD stones >15 mm, the difference between the stone and distal CBD diameter >2mm, distal CBD arm length <36 mm and stone shape. The score-based model's area under ROC was 0.88 (95% CI: 0.83, 0.93). For clinical use, the range of scores from 0 to 16, was divided into two subcategories based on CBD stone removal difficulty requiring EPLBD to derive the PPV. For scores <5 and ≥ 5, the PPV was 23.40 (p <0.001) and 93.44 (p <0.001) respectively. The Bootstrap sampling method indicated a prediction ability of 0.88 (AuROC, 95% CI: 0.83, 0.94).

CONCLUSION

This scoring system has acceptable prediction performance in assisting endoscopists in their choice of stone removal procedure.

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.

Common bile duct stone-related parameters and their potential prognostic values for stone extraction requiring endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation

Background and Aim

For difficult common bile duct (CBD) stones, endoscopic sphincterotomy accompanied by endoscopic papillary large balloon dilatation (EPLBD) may be the preferred initial procedure according to the selection criteria. The purpose of this study was to determine the association between CBD stone-related parameters and their potential prognostic values for technically difficult CBD stone extraction requiring EPLBD.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed the data of 80 patients who underwent endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), endoscopic biliary sphincterotomy, or the aforementioned procedures combined with EPLBD, resulting in successful CBD stone extraction in the first session from January 2018 and December 2021. The association between CBD stone-related parameters and stone extraction requiring EPLBD was analyzed by multivariable risk regression analysis.

Results

In multivariable analysis, the independent predictors of CBD stone extraction that required EPLBD were CBD stones larger than distal CBD diameter by >2 mm (risk ratio [RR] 2.34, 95% CI 1.30-4.19) and the presence of shaped stones (round shape RR 1.69 [95% CI 1.05-2.73]; square shape RR 2.34 [95% CI 1.24, 4.44] vs oval shape).

Conclusion

Endoscopic CBD stone removal is technically difficult in patients with stones larger than 2 mm in diameter in comparison to the distal CBD diameter or round or square-shaped stones.

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

BACKGROUND AND AIM

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Cost-effective analysis of preliminary single-operator cholangioscopy for management of difficult biliary stones

Background and study aims  Single-operator peroral cholangioscopy (SOC) is a therapeutic modality for difficult biliary stone disease. Given its high success rate and increasing availability, analysis of the economic impact of early SOC utilization is critical for clinical decision-making. Our aim is to compare the cost-effectiveness of different first and second-line endoscopic modalities for difficult-to-treat choledocholithiasis. Patients and methods  A decision-tree model with a 1-year time horizon and a hypothetical cohort of 200 patients was used to analyze the cost-effectiveness of SOC for first, second and third-line intervention in presumed difficult biliary stones. We adopted the perspective of a Canadian tertiary hospital, omitting recurrence rates associated with endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Effectiveness estimates were obtained from updated meta-analyses. One-way sensitivity analyses and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were also performed to assess how changes in key parameters affected model conclusions. Results  First- and second-line SOC achieved comparable clinical efficacy from 96.3 % to 97. 6 % stone clearance. The least expensive strategy is third-line SOC (SOC-3: $800,936). Performing SOC during the second ERCP was marginally more expensive (SOC-2: $ 816,584) but 9 % more effective. The strategy of first-line SOC incurred the highest hospital expenditures (SOC-1: $ 851,457) but decreased total procedures performed by 16.9 % when compared with SOC-2. Sensitivity analysis was robust in showing SOC-2 as the most optimal approach. Conclusions  Second-line SOC was superior to first and third-line SOC for treatment of difficult biliary stones. When based on meta-analysis of non-heterogeneous trials, SOC-2 is more cost-effective and cost-efficient. Our study warrants a larger pragmatic effectiveness trial.

Feasibility of endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation to remove difficult stones in patients with nondilated distal bile ducts

BACKGROUND

Current guidelines recommend not performing papillary large balloon dilation in patients with nondilated distal bile ducts.

AIM

To assess the feasibility of balloon dilation to remove difficult stones in patients with nondilated distal bile ducts.

METHODS

Data from 1289 endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) procedures were obtained from two prospective studies. While 258 cases had difficult stones (> 1 cm, multiple > 8, impacted, or having a thin distal duct), 191 underwent biliary dilation up to 15 mm after endoscopic sphincterotomy. Cholangiographies of these cases were retrospectively reviewed in order to classify the distal bile duct and both the stone size and number. Primary outcomes were clearance rate at first ERCP and complications.

RESULTS

Of the 191 patients (122 women and 69 men; mean age: 60 years) who underwent biliary dilation for difficult stones, 113 (59%) had a nondilated or tapered distal duct. Patients with a dilated distal duct were older than those with nondilated distal ducts (mean 68 and 52 years of age, respectively; P < 0.05), had more stones (median 4 and 2 stones per patient, respectively; P < 0.05), and had less need for additional mechanical lithotripsy (6.4% vs 25%, respectively; P < 0.05). Clearance rate at first ERCP was comparable between patients with a dilated (73/78; 94%) and nondilated distal ducts (103/113; 91%). Procedures were faster in patients with a dilated distal duct (mean 17 vs 24 min, respectively; P < 0.005). Complications were similar in both groups (6.4% vs 7.1%, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Large balloon dilation for difficult stones is feasible in patients with a nondilated or even tapered distal duct.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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.

[Complete Endoscopic Clearance of Common Bile Duct Stones]

Common bile duct stones (CBDS) are the most common cause of acute cholangitis. Removal by endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography became the standard of care after endoscopic sphincterotomy was introduced. On the other hand, it is still difficult to remove 10-15% of CBDS completely in the first attempt for various reasons. This review describes the methods for the complete endoscopic clearance of CBDS, including difficult cases, reflecting the latest knowledge and techniques.

Risk Factors for Perforation During Endoscopic Papillary Large Balloon Dilation and Bile Duct Stone Removal

BACKGROUND

Stone removal using endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation (EPLBD) is extremely effective. However, limited research exists regarding the risk factors for perforation of the duodenal papilla and bile duct, which may be fatal.

AIMS

We aimed to investigate the risk factors for perforation during EPLBD + stone removal.

METHODS

We included patients who underwent EPLBD + stone removal at four medical facilities between January 2008 and December 2018. We retrospectively analyzed the risk factors for perforation and their relationship between overdilation and adverse events. Overdilation was defined as a ratio of the balloon diameter to the diameter of the bile duct that exceeded 100%. The diameter of the distal bile duct was measured using the diameter of the intrapancreatic bile duct at a point 10 mm toward the liver from the narrow distal segment on a cholangiogram.

RESULTS

We included 310 patients (177 males; median age: 79 years [range: 46-102 years]). Perforation occurred in five patients (1.6%). Multivariate analysis indicated that no surrounding-pancreas (half or less of the circumference of the intrapancreatic bile duct was surrounded by the pancreatic parenchyma) was a significant risk factor (perforation rate: 8.3%, p = 0.011, odds ratio: 12.7 [95% confidence interval: 1.8-90.5]). No significant difference was found between the overdilation and non-overdilation groups regarding the occurrence of pancreatitis, bleeding, and cholangitis. Perforation rate in patients with no surrounding pancreas + overdilation was 16.7% (2/12). Patients with perforation underwent conservative therapy, which improved their conditions.

CONCLUSIONS

EPLBD + stone removal should be avoided in patients with no surrounding pancreas. Overdilation is not a risk factor for adverse procedural events; however, it should be limited in patients with surrounding pancreas.

Cholangioscopy: Has It Changed Management?

The single operator per oral cholangioscope is a catheter-based system that allows for direct visualization of the bile duct and pancreatic duct. The instrument with its improved imaging technique and larger accessory channel allows for high-quality image acquisition and performance of therapeutic and diagnostic procedures within the bile duct and pancreatic duct. There has been an increase in the range of indications for the use of the cholangioscope. The current indications include management of difficult biliary stones, pancreatic calculi, assessment of indeterminate biliary stricture, pancreatic stricture, intra-ductal papillary mucinous neoplasms, and extractions of proximally migrated stents. The use of laser lithotripsy and electro-hydraulic lithotripsy has improved the management of difficult bile duct stones. Direct visualization of biliary and pancreatic duct strictures is helpful in the diagnosis of indeterminate strictures. In this review, we explore how cholangioscopy has changed management.

Choledocholithiasis characteristics with periampullary diverticulum and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography procedures: Comparison between two centers from Lanzhou and Kyoto

BACKGROUND

Most of study regarding periampullary diverticulum (PAD) impact on endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) therapy for choledocholithiasis based on data from one endoscopy center and lacked to compare the clinical characteristic of choledocholithiasis with PAD from different geographical patients.

AIM

To compare the choledocholithiasis clinical characteristics between two regional endoscopy centers and analyze impacts of clinical characteristics on ERCP methods for choledocholithiasis patients with PAD.

METHODS

Patients seen in two endoscopy centers (The First Hospital of Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, Gansu Province, China, and Kyoto Second Red Cross Hospital, Kyoto, Japan) underwent ERCP treatment for the first time between January 2012 and December 2017. The characteristics of choledocholithiasis with PAD were compared between the two centers, and their ERCP procedures and therapeutic outcomes were analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 829 out of 3608 patients in the Lanzhou center and 241 out of 1198 in the Kyoto center had choledocholithiasis with PAD. Lots of clinical characteristics were significantly different between the two centers. The common bile duct (CBD) diameter was wider, choledocholithiasis size was lager and multiple CBD stones were more in the Lanzhou center patients than those in the Kyoto center patients (14.8 ± 5.2 mm vs 11.6 ± 4.2 mm, 12.2 ± 6.5 mm vs 8.2 ± 5.3 mm, 45.3% vs 20.3%, P < 0.001 for all). In addition, concomitant diseases, such as acute cholangitis, gallbladder stones, obstructive jaundice, cholecystectomy, and acute pancreatitis, were significantly different between the two centers (P = 0.03 to < 0.001). In the Lanzhou center, CBD diameter and choledocholithiasis size were lower, and multiple CBD stones and acute cholangitis were less in non-PAD patients than those in PAD patients (13.4 ± 5.1 mm vs 14.8 ± 5.2 mm, 10.3 ± 5.4 mm vs 12.2 ± 6.5, 39% vs 45.3%, 13.9% vs 18.5%, P = 0.002 to < 0.001). But all these characteristics were not significantly different in the Kyoto center. The proportions of endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST), endoscopic balloon dilatation (EPBD), and EST+EPBD were 50.5%, 1.7%, and 42.5% in the Lanzhou center and 90.0%, 0.0%, and 0.4% in the Kyoto center, respectively. However, the overall post-ERCP complication rate was not significantly different between the two centers (8.9% in the Lanzhou and 5.8% in the Kyoto. P = 0.12). In the Lanzhou center, the difficulty rate in removing CBD stones in PAD was higher than in non-PAD group (35.3% vs 26.0%, P < 0.001). But the rate was no significant difference between the two groups in Kyoto center. The residual rates of choledocholithiasis were not significantly different between the two groups in both centers. Post-ERCP complications occurred in 8.9% of the PAD patients and 8.1% of the non-PAD patients in the Lanzhou Center, and it occurred in 5.8% in PAD patients and 10.0% in non-PAD patients in the Kyoto center, all P > 0.05.

CONCLUSION

Many clinical characteristics of choledocholithiasis patients with PAD were significantly different between the Lanzhou and Kyoto centers. The patients had larger and multiple stones, wider CBD diameter, and more possibility of acute cholangitis and obstructive jaundice in the Lanzhou center than those in the Kyoto center. The ERCP procedures to manage native duodenal papilla were different depending on the different clinical characteristics while the overall post-ERCP complications were not significantly different between the two centers. The stone residual rate and post-ERCP complications were not significantly different between choledocholithiasis patients with PAD and without PAD in each center.

Combined surgical and intraoperative endoscopic rescue of a biliary incarcerated balloon dilator: a successful rescue in a fortunate patient

Background

Endoscopic papillary balloon dilatation (EPBD) is the second proposed maneuver for the endoscopic retrieval of common bile duct stones after endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST). Being less traumatic, EPBD is acknowledged for fewer procedure-related complications compared to (EST).

Case presentation

We present a 55-year-old lady, who was referred to the pancreato-biliary division, Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Unit, National Liver Institute, Menoufia University, for endoscopic management of a high likelihood of choledocholithiasis. Unfortunately, during the procedure, the balloon dilator was incarcerated inside the common bile duct (CBD) with failure of all endoscopic extraction trials. Because of the resultant cholangio-pancreatitis, the incarcerated inflated balloon had to be removed immediately. Open surgical rescue of the case in conjunction with the intraoperative endoscopic biliary stent deployment had made it possible to save the patient.

Conclusion

This case is one of the few reports of incarcerated balloon dilator during EPBD and failure of endoscopic retrieval, with subsequent acute pancreatitis/hepato-cholangitis, and gall bladder mucocele. Despite being a critical surgical candidate and owing to the attentive timely surgical intervention collaborated with the intra-operative endoscopic management, the case was fortunate.

Difficult Biliary Stones: A Comprehensive Review of New and Old Lithotripsy Techniques

Biliary stones represent the most common indication for therapeutic endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Many cases are successfully managed with biliary sphincterotomy and stone extraction with balloon or basket catheters. However, more complex conditions secondary to the specific features of stones, the biliary tract, or patient’s needs could make the stone extraction with the standard techniques difficult. Traditionally, mechanical lithotripsy with baskets has been reported as a safe and effective technique to achieve stone clearance. More recently, the increasing use of endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation and the diffusion of single-operator cholangioscopy with laser or electrohydraulic lithotripsy have brought new, safe, and effective therapeutic possibilities to the management of such challenging cases. We here summarize the available evidence about the endoscopic management of difficult common bile duct stones and discuss current indications of different lithotripsy techniques.

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.

Comparison of the efficacy and safety between palliative biliary stent placement and duct clearance among elderly patients with choledocholithiasis: a propensity score-matched analysis

Objectives

This study aimed to evaluate and compare the outcomes of palliative endoscopic biliary stenting (EBS) and complete stone removal among elderly patients with choledocholithiasis using propensity score matching.

Methods

From April 2012 to October 2017, 161 patients aged 75 years and older with choledocholithiasis underwent endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography at our institution. Among them, 136 (84.5%) had complete stone removal, and 25 (15.5%) underwent palliative EBS without further intervention until symptom occurrence. The median age of the EBS group was significantly higher than that of the complete stone removal group. The proportion of patients with dementia, cerebral infarction, preserved gallbladder with gallstones, and surgically altered anatomy was higher in the EBS group than in the complete stone removal group. Propensity score matching was used to adjust for different factors. In total, 50 matched patients (n = 25 in each group) were analyzed.

Results

The median duration of cholangitis-free periods was significantly shorter in the EBS group (596 days) than in the complete stone removal group. About half of patients in the EBS group required retreatment and rehospitalization for cholangitis during the observation period. Cholangitis was mainly caused by stent migration. There was no significant difference in terms of mortality rate and procedure-related adverse events between the two groups. Death was commonly attributed to underlying diseases. However, one patient in the EBS group died due to severe cholangitis.

Conclusions

Palliative EBS should be indicated only to patients with choledocholithiasis who have a poor prognosis.

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.

Immediate or Interval Endoscopic Papillary Large-balloon Dilation after Limited Endoscopic Sphincterotomy for Bile Duct Stone Removal

Objective Endoscopic papillary large-balloon dilation (EPLBD) with limited endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) is widely used for removing multiple large common bile duct (CBD) stones. However, the safety and effectiveness of immediate EPLBD after limited EST and EPLBD at an interval after limited EST is unclear. Thus, this multicenter retrospective study was conducted to examine this matter. Methods Propensity score-matching was performed to adjust the baseline characteristics between the immediate and interval EPLBD groups. We compared the incidence of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) complications and the early outcomes of ERCP between the 2 matched groups, which comprised 66 patients each. Results The complete stone clearance rate in each study group was 100%. The overall incidence of post-ERCP complications in the propensity score-matched interval and immediate EPLBD groups was 3/33 (9.1%) and 1/33 (3.0%), respectively (p=0.61). The immediate EPLBD group had significantly fewer mean ERCP sessions for complete stone removal and a significantly lower rate of endoscopic mechanical lithotripsy (EML) usage than the interval EPLBD group [1.6 vs. 2.4 sessions, p<0.001; and 4/33 (12.1%) vs. 12/33 (36.4%), p=0.042, respectively]. Conclusion The incidence of post-ERCP complications in the immediate EPLBD group was not significantly different from that in the interval EPLBD group. Compared with interval EPLBD, immediate EPLBD may result in a reduced number of ERCP sessions for complete stone clearance and reduce the rate of EML usage.

Efficacy of endoscopic large balloon dilation extended for 2 minutes in bile duct stone removal: A multicenter retrospective study

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE

There is no evidence regarding the optimal balloon dilation time during endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation (EPLBD). The study aim was to evaluate the efficacy of 2-minute extended balloon dilation for EPLBD.

METHODS

Two hundred and five patients who underwent EPLBD during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) for bile duct stones at three tertiary centers were included in the analysis. Clinical outcomes and the adverse events were compared between the 0-minute group (n = 94, balloon deflated immediately after waist disappearance) and the 2-minute group (n = 111, balloon dilation maintained for 2 minutes after waist disappearance). The risk factors of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) after EPLBD were assessed.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in the stone removal rates and hospitalization periods between the two groups. However, the total ERCP procedure time was significantly shorter in the 2-minute group (40.6 vs 48.9 min, P = .03). The incidence of PEP was 7.4% in the 0-minute group and significantly lower at 0.9% in the 2-minute group (P = .04). Multivariate analysis identified without 2-minute extended EPLBD as a significant risk factor of PEP (OR: 9.9, P = .045).

CONCLUSIONS

Extension of EPLBD for 2 minutes helped prevent PEP and shortened the procedure time.

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

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

Endoscopic management of difficult common bile duct stones

INTRODUCTION

Common bile duct stones are a very frequent problem in the western world and endoscopic stone clearance is the method of choice for treatment. Despite its common use, endoscopic clearance of common bile duct stones is not always trivial especially in cases involving large or multiple stones.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A literature review regarding different endoscopic techniques was performed for this article and a recommended therapeutic algorithm developed based on the guidelines of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and the German Gastroenterological Society (DGVS).

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

This review gives an overview of currently applied endoscopic techniques, their success and complication rates as well as alternative methods used for cases involving anatomic anomalies. The purpose of this review is to recommend a therapeutic algorithm for the treatment of difficult common bile duct stones.

CONLCLUSIONS

For the treatment of difficult common bile duct stones, combined sphincterotomy and endoscopic large balloon dilation should be first choice. Mechanical lithotripsy and cholangioscopy-guided lithotripsy are close alternatives with nearly equal clearance rates and should be used if accessible. The insertion of a temporary plastic stent is a good choice to gain time to explore further treatment options. Enteroscopy-based ERCP, PTCS or EUS-guided hepaticogastrostomy and stone treatment, while good alternatives for select cases involving anatomic anomalies, should be performed at specialised units.

Spontaneous disappearance of common bile duct stones following the insertion of a new dumbbell-shaped, covered self-expandable metallic stent in a patient with benign biliary stricture

The new dumbbell-shaped, covered self-expanding metallic stent can efficiently remove the choledocholiths in cases with common bile duct (CBD) strictures; moreover, it may potentially prevent a positional displacement and contribute to the better improvement of the CBD stricture.

Management of Difficult Bile Duct Stones by Large Balloon, Cholangioscopy, Enteroscopy and Endosonography

Endoscopic management of bile duct stones is now the standard of care, but challenges remain with difficult bile duct stones. There are some known factors associated with technically difficult bile duct stones, such as large size and surgically altered anatomy. Endoscopic mechanical lithotripsy is now the standard technique used to remove large bile duct stones, but the efficacy of endoscopic papillary large balloon dilatation (EPLBD) and cholangioscopy with intraductal lithotripsy has been increasingly reported. In patients with surgically altered anatomy, biliary access before stone removal can be technically difficult. Endotherapy using two new endoscopes is now utilized in clinical practice: enteroscopy-assisted endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and endoscopic ultrasound-guided antegrade treatment. These new approaches can be combined with EPLBD and/or cholangioscopy to remove large bile duct stones from patients with surgically altered anatomy. Since various endoscopic procedures are now available, endoscopists should learn the indications, advantages and disadvantages of each technique for better management of bile duct stones.

Recent advances in the management of difficult bile-duct stones: a focus on single-operator cholangioscopy-guided lithotripsy

The most effective and the standard treatment for bile duct stones (BDSs) is endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). However, in 10% to 15% of patients with BDSs, the stones cannot be removed by conventional ERCP, which involves endoscopic sphincterotomy followed by balloon or basket extraction. Additional techniques or devices are often necessary to remove these difficult bileduct stones, including endoscopic papillary large balloon dilatation to make a larger papillary opening and/or mechanical lithotripsy to fragment the stones. Advances in cholangioscopy have made possible electrohydraulic or laser lithotripsy under direct cholangioscopic visualization during ERCP. Cholangioscopy-guided lithotripsy could be another good option in the armamentarium of techniques for removing difficult BDSs. Here we review endoscopic techniques based on single-operator cholangioscopy for the management of difficult BDSs.

Percutaneous stone removal using a compliant balloon after papillary balloon dilatation

PURPOSE

To evaluate the safety and efficacy of percutaneous stone removal using a compliant balloon after papillary balloon dilatation.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Between March 2014 and May 2020, 123 patients with choledocholithiasis, in whom endoscopy was unsuccessful, were enrolled in this study. The ampulla of Vater was dilated using a noncompliant balloon, and stone removal was attempted via a pushing maneuver using an endoscopic stone extraction balloon. Clinical and technical success rates, complications, and risk factors for failure and complications were evaluated.

RESULTS

Biliary stones were completely removed in 118 of 123 patients. Major complications occurred in five patients. One patient experienced duodenal bleeding, which was successfully treated by endoscopy. Hemobilia occurred in three patients, which required transfusion, and one patient experienced four days of abdominal pain. Minor complications, including self-limiting pain, effusion, minimal hemobilia, elevated amylase and fever, occurred in 21 patients. Stone size was the only significant risk factor associated with the rate of complications (Odds ratio: 1.14, 95% confidence interval = 1.04, 1.26). Bilirubin and white blood cell levels significantly decreased after the procedure.

CONCLUSION

Percutaneous stone removal using a compliant balloon after papillary balloon dilatation is a safe and effective method in patients in whom endoscopic or surgical treatment is not feasible. Abbreviations: ERCP: endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography; PTBD: percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage.

Safety and efficacy of laparoscopic common bile duct exploration for the patients with difficult biliary stones: 8 years of experiences at a single institution and literature review

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) has gained wide popularity for the treatment of choledocholithiasis. However, it remains unclear whether LCBDE is a better alternative option for the patients with difficult biliary stones. Thus, the aim of the present study was to explore the safety and efficacy of LCBDE for these patients by retrospectively analyzing our data and combing with literature review.

METHODS

Between September 2011 and February 2019, 1064 consecutive patients who underwent LCBDE at Shanghai Tenth People's Hospital were reviewed. The clinical data of patients with difficult biliary stones were selected and retrospectively analyzed.

RESULTS

Of these patients, 334 cases were confirmed with difficult biliary stones, and the overall complete stone clearance rate was 98.8% (330/334). 34 cases (10.2%) were performed with laser lithotripsy. A total of 296 patients (88.6%) underwent primary closure of common bile duct, and T-tube drainage was indwelled in 38 patients (11.4%). No bile duct injury, bleeding, perforation and surgery-related deaths were observed. The overall morbidity rate was 6.6%. 16 cases (4.8%) occurred in bile leakage with primary closure procedure, and all of them were managed successfully with conservative therapy. The median follow-up period was 9 months with stone recurrence occurring in 9 patients (2.7%). There was no evidence of bile duct stricture in all cases.

CONCLUSIONS

The current study suggests that LCBED is a considerable safe and effective option for the patients with difficult biliary stones. A randomized clinical trial is needed to further evaluate the benefit of LCBDE in this subgroup.

Dilation assisted stone extraction for complex biliary lithiasis: Technical aspects and practical principles

Common bile duct stones are frequently diagnosed worldwide and are one of the main indications for endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography. Endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) has been used for the removal of bile duct stones for the past 40 years, providing a wide opening to allow extraction. Up to 15% of patients present with complicated choledocholithiasis. In this context, additional therapeutic approaches have been proposed such as endoscopic mechanical lithotripsy, intraductal or extracorporeal lithotripsy, or endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation (EPLBD). EPLBD combined with EST was introduced in 2003 to facilitate the passage of large or multiple bile duct stones using a balloon greater than 12 mm in diameter. EPLBD without EST was introduced as a simplified technique in 2009. Dilation-assisted stone extraction (DASE) is the combination of two techniques: EPLBD and sub-maximal EST. Several studies have reported this technique as safe and effective in patients with large bile duct stones, without any increased risk of adverse events such as pancreatitis, bleeding, or perforation. Nevertheless, it is difficult to analyze the outcomes of DASE because there are no standard techniques and definitions between studies. The purpose of this paper is to provide technical guidance and specific information about the main issues regarding DASE, based on current literature and daily clinical experience in biliary referral centers.

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.

SpyGlass-guided laser lithotripsy versus laparoscopic common bile duct exploration for large common bile duct stones: a non-inferiority trial

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) is the first choice of treatment for large common bile duct (CBD) stones. Recently, single-operator cholangioscopy (SpyGlass system) has been introduced widely in referral and large medical centers. Several studies have reported favorable results for treatment of large CBD stones guided by SpyGlass. We evaluated the clinical efficacy and safety of SpyGlass-guided laser lithotripsy LCBDE for treatment of large CBD stones.

METHODS

From August 2015 to August 2018, 157 patients with large bile duct stones who met the inclusion criteria were randomly divided into two groups: SpyGlass-guided laser lithotripsy (Group A) and LCBDE (Group B). The efficacy and complications were compared between the groups.

RESULTS

Although the first-session stone removal rate in Group A was significantly lower than that in Group B, Group A was not inferior to Group B in terms of total stone removal rate. Compared with Group B, Group A had shorter hospital stay and enhanced recovery. The short-term complication rates were also similar between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The clinical efficacy of SpyGlass-guided laser lithotripsy for the treatment of large CBD stones is not inferior to that of LCBDE, and it is less invasive. SpyGlass-guided laser lithotripsy is an important option for treatment of large CBD stones.

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.

Long-term Outcomes of Endoscopic Papillary Large-balloon Dilation for Common Bile Duct Stones

Objective Endoscopic papillary large-balloon dilation (EPLBD) for common bile duct (CBD) stone removal has been confirmed to be safe and effective in the short term. The long-term outcomes of EPLBD, which have not been sufficiently evaluated, were therefore investigated in this study. Methods For patients who had undergone endoscopic CBD stone removal with EPLBD between October 2011 and December 2015, follow-up surveys were conducted using a postal survey, telephone interview, or medical record review in August 2017. The main outcome measurement was the recurrence rate of CBD stones after complete stone removal with EPLBD in patients who received follow-up for more than one year. Risk factors for such recurrence were secondarily analyzed. Results Of the 98 patients treated using EPLBD, 93 (95%) were followed up after complete stone removal and analyzed for the long-term outcomes. During the mean follow-up period of 33.7±16.6 months, CBD stones recurred in 16 patients (17%) with a mean interval of 12.7±12.7 months. Univariate analyses showed that a large stone size, multiple stones, a large distal CBD diameter, and a history of cholecystectomy were significant risk factors for stone recurrence (p=0.022, 0.013, 0.001 and 0.035, respectively). The large distal CBD diameter was the only significant risk factor for stone recurrence in a multivariate analysis (hazard ratio, 1.227; p=0.031). Conclusion The long-term outcomes of EPLBD for CBD stones, including the rate of stone recurrence, were found to be acceptable. A large distal CBD diameter was an independent risk factor for stone recurrence.

Is Endoscopic Balloon Dilation Still Associated With Higher Rates of Pancreatitis?: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of endoscopic papillary balloon dilation (EPBD), endoscopic sphincterotomy (ES), and the combination of large balloon dilation and ES (ES + EPLBD) in the treatment of common bile duct stones, with a special focus on postendoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP). Individualized search strategies were developed in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which evaluated at least one of the following outcomes: PEP, complete stone removal in the first ERCP, need for mechanical lithotripsy, recurrence of common bile duct stones, bleeding, and cholangitis. Twenty-five RCTs were selected for analysis. Pancreatitis rates were higher for EPBD than for ES (P = 0.003), as were severe pancreatitis rates (P = 0.04). However, in the 10-mm or greater balloon subgroup analysis, this difference was not shown (P = 0.82). Rates of PEP were higher in the subgroup of non-Asian subjects (P = 0.02), and the results were not robust when RCTs that used endoscopic nasobiliary drainage were omitted. The incidence of pancreatitis was comparable between EPLBD and ES + EPLBD. All 3 approaches were equally efficacious. Nevertheless, the results should be interpreted with caution, because pancreatitis is a multifactorial pathology, and RCTs can have limited generalizability.

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.

Safety and Efficacy of Endoscopic Removal of Common Bile Duct Stones in Elderly Patients ≥90 Years of Age

Objective We examined the safety and efficacy of endoscopic stone removal for choledocholithiasis in elderly patients ≥90 years of age with native papilla and compared the outcomes with those in patients 75-89 years of age. Methods This multicenter retrospective study included 569 patients 75-89 years of age and 126 patients ≥90 years of age who had native papilla and underwent therapeutic endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) for choledocholithiasis at 3 institutions in Japan between April 2012 and March 2018. The main outcomes assessed were the incidence of post-ERCP complications during hospitalization and outcomes of ERCP in patients ≥90 years of age. Results Biliary cannulation and subsequent endoscopic sphincterotomy, endoscopic balloon dilation, and endoscopic large balloon dilation were successful in 97.7% of patients 75-89 years of age and in 98.4% of patients ≥90 years of age. There was no significant difference in the incidence of post-ERCP complications between patients 75-89 years of age and those ≥90 years of age (7.7% vs. 9.5%, respectively; p=0.47). Although the rate of use of mechanical lithotripter was not significantly different, the rate of complete stone removal in patients ≥90 years of age was lower than that in patients 75-89 years of age (81.0% vs. 94.9%, respectively; p<0.001). In all cases with incomplete stone removal in both groups, permanent biliary stent placement was successful. Conclusion ERCP for choledocholithiasis in elderly patients ≥90 years of age is a safe and effective procedure; however, endoscopists should select appropriate strategies after considering each patient's medical condition and background.

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.