The role of endoscopic balloon sphincteroplasty in patients with gallbladder and bile duct stones

Endoscopic balloon sphincter dilation (sphincteroplasty) versus sphincterotomy for common bile duct stones

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic balloon dilation was introduced as an alternative to endoscopic sphincterotomy to preserve the sphincter of Oddi and avoid undesirable effects due to an incompetent sphincter. Endoscopic balloon dilation has been largely abandoned by USA endoscopists due to increased risks of pancreatitis noted in one multicentre trial, but is still practiced in parts of Asia and Europe.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of endoscopic balloon dilation versus endoscopic sphincterotomy in the management of common bile duct stones.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, and EMBASE until January 2004. We hand searched Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (1983-2002), read through bibliographies of all included randomised clinical trials, and contacted all primary authors regarding missed randomised trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised clinical trials comparing endoscopic balloon dilation versus endoscopic sphincterotomy in removal of common bile duct stones irrespective of publication status, language, or blinding.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data collection was done by two independent authors for decisions on study inclusion, data abstraction, and quality assessment. When there was a non-resolvable discrepancy, the third author made the final decision. Analysis was run with RevMan Analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

Fifteen randomised trials met our inclusion criteria (1768 participants). Less than half of the trials reported adequate methods of randomisation and only two trials used blinded outcome assessment. Endoscopic balloon dilation is statistically less successful for stone removal (relative risk (RR) 0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 0.97), requires higher rates of mechanical lithotripsy (RR 1.34, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.66), and carries a higher risk of pancreatitis (RR 1.96, 95% CI 1.34 to 2.89). Conversely, endoscopic balloon dilation has statistically significant lower rates of bleeding. When a fixed-effect model is applied endoscopic balloon dilation leads to significantly less short-term infection and long-term infection. There was no statistically significant difference with regards to mortality, perforation, or total short-term complications.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopic balloon dilation is slightly less successful than endoscopic sphincterotomy in stone extraction and more risky regarding pancreatitis. However, endoscopic balloon dilation seems to have a clinical role in patients who have coagulopathy, who are at risk for infection, and possibly in those who are older.

Efficacy of endoscopic nasobiliary drainage for the prevention of pancreatitis after papillary balloon dilatation: a pilot study

OBJECTIVE

Endoscopic papillary balloon dilatation (EPBD) has been reported to increase the risk of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (4%-11%). Based on the hypothesis that performing endoscopic nasobiliary drainage (ENBD) could prevent this complication, we performed EPBD combined with ENBD (EPBD/ENBD) and analyzed the risk of pancreatitis.

METHODS

Thirty-four patients underwent EPBD followed by ENBD for common bile duct stone(s). Serum amylase levels the following morning and incidence of pancreatitis were compared with those previously reported and with complications of simple diagnostic ERCP performed in our institution.

RESULTS

After EPBD/ENBD, amylase levels the following morning were 214.5 +/- 152.9 U/L, and no cases developed pancreatitis or hyperamylasemia (>3 times normal). These outcomes were favorable compared with previous EPBD reports. Furthermore, despite the stress of EPBD/ENBD after ERCP, these outcomes were better, even compared with simple ERCP performed at our institution [amylase levels: 318.7 +/- 475.2 U/L; hyperamylasemia: 16.5% (P = 0.006); pancreatitis: 7.1%].

CONCLUSION

Although EPBD has been regarded as a risk factor for post-ERCP pancreatitis, our results suggest the possibility that application of ENBD after EPBD decreases the incidence of pancreatitis and should be studied further. We speculate that ENBD itself prevents pancreatic duct obstruction by residual stones or papillary edema.

Endoscopic balloon dilation compared with sphincterotomy for extraction of bile duct stones

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography is commonly performed to remove bile duct stones. The aim of this study was to determine short-term outcomes of endoscopic balloon dilation of the sphincter of Oddi compared with sphincterotomy for stone extraction.

METHODS

A randomized, controlled multicenter study of 117 patients assigned to dilation and 120 to sphincterotomy was performed in a spectrum of clinical and academic practices.

RESULTS

Characteristics of the patients, procedures, and endoscopists were similar except that dilation patients were younger. Procedures were successful in 97.4% and 92.5% of the dilation and sphincterotomy patients, respectively. Overall morbidity occurred in 17.9% and 3.3% ( P < .001; difference, 14.6; 95% confidence interval, 7-22.3) and severe morbidity, including 2 deaths, in 6.8% and 0%( P < .004; difference, 6.8; 95% confidence interval, 2.3-11.4) for dilation and sphincterotomy, respectively. Complications for dilation and sphincterotomy, respectively, included: pancreatitis, 15.4% and .8% ( P < .001; difference, 14.6; 95% confidence interval, 7.8-21.3); cystic duct fistula, 1.7% and 0%; cholangitis, .9% and .8%; perforation, 0% and .8%; and cholecystitis, 0% and .8%. There were 2 deaths (1.7%) due to pancreatitis following dilation and none with sphincterotomy. The study was terminated at the first interim analysis. Dilation patients required significantly more invasive procedures, longer hospital stays, and longer time off from normal activities.

CONCLUSIONS

In a broad spectrum of patients and practices, endoscopic balloon dilation compared with sphincterotomy for biliary stone extraction is associated with increased short-term morbidity rates and death due to pancreatitis. Balloon dilation of the sphincter of Oddi for stone extraction should be avoided in routine practice.

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.

Endoscopic management of bile duct stones

The advantages of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) over open surgery make it the predominant method of treating choledocholithiasis. Today, technologic advances such as magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography and laparoscopic surgery are challenging ERCP's primacy in the management of common bile duct (CBD) stones. This article reviews the current status of endoscopic treatment of biliary stones and examines this in relation to laparoscopic management. The techniques and safety of endoscopic sphincterotomy and balloon sphincteroplasty are reviewed. Balloon sphincteroplasty should be limited to study protocols because of safety questions and inherent limitations. After sphincterotomy, 85% to 90% of CBD stones can be removed with a Dormia basket or balloon catheter. These techniques are described as having both advantages and disadvantages. Methods for managing "difficult stones" include mechanical lithotripsy, intraductal shock wave lithotripsy, extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy, chemical dissolution, and biliary stenting. These approaches are presented along with data supporting their use in specific situations. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy has emerged as the preferred alternative to open cholecystectomy. Parallel advances in the endoscopic and laparoscopic management of CBD stones have made the issue regarding the optimal treatment strategy complex. Three approaches to the management of choledocholithiasis in the laparoscopic era are presented as follows: strict therapeutic splitting, flexible therapeutic splitting, and strict laparoscopic management. The optimal approach needs to be defined in prospective comparative trials. For now, preoperative endoscopic stone extraction should still be recommended as the approach of choice in patients suspected to have CBD stones based on clinical, biochemical, and imaging parameters. Primary laparoscopic evaluation and management is reasonable in patients who have a low-to-moderate probability of having CBD stones.