Large size balloon dilation of the ampulla after biliary sphincterotomy can facilitate endoscopic extraction of difficult bile duct stones

Postendoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography Pancreatitis Pathophysiology and Prevention

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is an essential procedure for the management of pancreato-biliary disorders. Pancreatitis remains the most frequent complication of the ERCP procedure, and it is, therefore, necessary to recognize the pathophysiology and risk factors contributing to the development of pancreatitis and understand the methods to prevent this complication.

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.

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.

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.

Randomized trial of cholangioscopy-guided laser lithotripsy versus conventional therapy for large bile duct stones (with videos)

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Bile duct stones >1 cm have a decreased incidence of successful endoscopic extraction and often require lithotripsy. Although previous guidelines suggested mechanical lithotripsy for large common bile duct stones, current guidelines suggest cholangioscopy-guided lithotripsy as an adjunct with or without balloon dilation or mechanical lithotripsy. However, no randomized trials have assessed the usefulness of this practice.

METHODS

Patients with bile duct stones >1 cm in diameter were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to cholangioscopy-guided laser lithotripsy versus conventional therapy only. Conventional therapies such as mechanical lithotripsy or balloon dilation were also allowed in the laser lithotripsy group. Randomization was stratified by history of ERCP in the past 3 months. The primary outcome was endoscopic clearance of the bile duct stones.

RESULTS

Endoscopic clearance was achieved in 39 (93%) of 42 patients treated with cholangioscopy-guided laser lithotripsy and 12 (67%) of 18 treated with conventional therapy only (P = .009). The 9 patients in whom ERCP was unsuccessful underwent surgical common duct exploration with stone removal. Mean procedure time was 120.7 ± 40.2 minutes for the cholangioscopy-guided laser lithotripsy group compared with 81.2 ± 49.3 minutes for the conventional therapy group (P = .0008). There was no significant difference in fluoroscopy time, number of procedures, or adverse events (cholangitis) (cholangioscopy, 2; conventional, 1) and post-ERCP pancreatitis (cholangioscopy, 2; conventional, 1).

CONCLUSION

Cholangioscopy-guided laser lithotripsy increases the incidence of endoscopic clearance of large bile duct stones and decreases the need for surgery compared with conventional therapy alone. However, it is associated with longer procedure times. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT0175997.).

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.

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.

Evolution in the utilization of biliary interventions in the United States: results of a nationwide longitudinal study from 1998 to 2013

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Bile duct surgery (BDS), percutaneous transhepatic cholangiography (PTC), and ERCP are alternative interventions used to treat biliary disease. Our aim was to describe trends in ERCP, BDS, and PTC on a nationwide level in the United States.

METHODS

We used the National Inpatient Sample to estimate age-standardized utilization trends of inpatient diagnostic ERCP, therapeutic ERCP, BDS, and PTC between 1998 and 2013. We calculated average case fatality, length of stay, patient demographic profile (age, gender, payer), and hospital characteristics (hospital size and metropolitan status) for these procedures.

RESULTS

Total biliary interventions decreased over the study period from 119.8 to 100.1 per 100,000. Diagnostic ERCP utilization decreased by 76%, and therapeutic ERCP utilization increased by 35%. BDS rates decreased by 78% and PTC rates by 24%. ERCP has almost completely supplanted surgery for the management of choledocholithiasis. Fatality from ERCP, BDS, and PTC have all decreased, whereas mean length of stay has remained stable. The proportion of Medicare-insured, Medicaid-insured, and uninsured patients undergoing biliary procedures has increased over time. Most of the increase in therapeutic ERCP and decrease in BDS occurred in large, metropolitan hospitals.

CONCLUSIONS

Although therapeutic ERCP utilization has increased over time, the total volume of biliary interventions has decreased. BDS utilization has experienced the most dramatic decrease, possibly a consequence of the increased therapeutic capacity and safety of ERCP. ERCPs are now predominantly therapeutic in nature. Large urban hospitals are leading the shift from surgical to endoscopic therapy of the biliary system.

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.

Limited precut sphincterotomy combined with endoscopic papillary balloon dilation for common bile duct stone removal in patients with difficult biliary cannulation

Background

Difficult biliary cannulation in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) can result in failure of common bile duct (CBD) stone removal and pancreatitis. The present study aimed to report the efficacy and safety of limited precut sphincterotomy (PS) combined with endoscopic papillary balloon dilation (EPBD) for CBD stone removal in patients with difficult biliary cannulation, and the complications associated with this combined procedure.

Methods

A total of 3305 patients underwent ERCP in our hospital between October 2009 and September 2014 and 258 were diagnosed with difficult biliary cannulation. Of these 258 patients, 58 underwent limited PS combined with EPBD for CBD stone removal, and these 58 patients were included in this retrospective study.

Results

The overall success rate was 94.8 % (55/58), and the success rate for single-session removal was 87.9 % (51/58). The mean procedure time was 41 ± 11.48 min (range, 20–72 min). Mechanical lithotripsy was needed in 10.3 % (6/58) of patients. Procedure-related complications included bleeding in 3.4 % (2/58), pancreatitis in 8.6 % (5/58) and biliary tract infection (BTI) in 1.7 % (1/58) of patients.

Conclusions

The therapeutic outcome of limited PS combined with EPBD for CBD stone removal in patients with difficult biliary cannulation was good with an acceptable complication rate. It could be an alternative to PS and “early” limited PS should be used for prompt identification of the bile duct. Limited PS combined with EPBD is safe and effective for CBD stone removal in patients with difficult biliary cannulation.

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.

Is endoscopic papillary large balloon dilatation without endoscopic sphincterotomy effective?

AIM: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of endoscopic papillary large balloon dilatation (EPLBD) without endoscopic sphincterotomy in a prospective study.

METHODS: From July 2011 to August 2013, we performed EPLBD on 41 patients with naïve papillae prospectively. For sphincteroplasty of EPLBD, endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) was not performed, and balloon diameter selection was based on the distal common bile duct diameter. The balloon was inflated to the desired pressure. If the balloon waist did not disappear, and the desired pressure was satisfied, we judged the dilatation as complete. We used a retrieval balloon catheter or mechanical lithotripter (ML) to remove stones and assessed the rates of complete stone removal, number of sessions, use of ML and adverse events. Furthermore, we compared the presence or absence of balloon waist disappearance with clinical characteristics and endoscopic outcome.

RESULTS: The mean diameters of the distal and maximum common bile duct were 13.5 ± 2.4 mm and 16.4 ± 3.1 mm, respectively. The mean maximum transverse-diameter of the stones was 13.4 ± 3.4 mm, and the mean number of stones was 3.0 ± 2.4. Complete stone removal was achieved in 97.5% (40/41) of cases, and ML was used in 12.2% (5/41) of cases. The mean number of sessions required was 1.2 ± 0.62. Pancreatitis developed in two patients and perforation in one. The rate of balloon waist disappearance was 73.1% (30/41). No significant differences were noted in procedure time, rate of complete stone removal (100% vs 100%), number of sessions (1.1 vs 1.3, P = 0.22), application of ML (13% vs 9%, P = 0.71), or occurrence of pancreatitis (3.3% vs 9.1%, P = 0.45) between cases with and without balloon waist disappearance.

CONCLUSION: EST before sphincteroplasty may be unnecessary in EPLBD. Further investigations are needed to verify the relationship between the presence or absence of balloon waist disappearance.

A comparative study of one minute versus five seconds endoscopic biliary balloon dilation after small sphincterotomy in choleducolithiasis

Background:

Limited sphincterotomy and endoscopic papillary balloon dilation (EPBD) is a low-risk method for the treatment of choleducolithiasis. Traditionally one minute ballooning time (BT) is applied; however, the effective BT is not clear. In this study, we compare five seconds and one minute ballooning time.

Materials and Methods:

In this single-blind, randomized, clinical trial 60 patients with common bile duct (CBD) stones documented in ultrasonography or magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP), with no severe hepatic, biliary or systemic diseases, enrolled in the study. The patients were randomly assigned to receive EPBD with either five seconds (n = 31) or one minute (n = 29) ballooning time (BT) after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and small sphincterotomy. Then stones were retrieved with an extractor balloon. The patients were followed for 48 hours to check the possible complications.

Results:

Successful CBD stone removal was the same in the five-second and one-minute BT groups (93.5% vs. 96.6%; P = 0.594). Pancreatitis occurred in three (9.7%) patients in the five-second BT group and in six (20.7%) patients in the one-minute BT group (P = 0.233). No hemorrhage or perforation was noted.

Conclusions:

After a small sphincterotomy, EPBD in the five-second and one-minute BT groups had a similar efficacy. Small sphincterotomy combined with very short BT is a safe and effective method for CBD stone removal.

Mid-term outcome of endoscopic sphincterotomy combined with large balloon dilation

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Endoscopic sphincterotomy (ES) combined with large balloon dilation (ESLBD) can be useful for extracting large and multiple bile duct stones. Although there are many studies on the feasibility and short-term outcome, there are few reports about mid- to long-term outcome after ESLBD. The aim of our study is to prospectively evaluate the mid-term outcome of ESLBD.

METHODS

One hundred eighty-three patients who underwent ESLBD between November 2006 and May 2012 were included. The patients were followed up periodically after the procedure until April 2013. Papillary dilation was performed at the time of initial ES or prior ES. Early and late adverse events and stone recurrence were evaluated in this study.

RESULTS

The patients' mean age was 76.6 ± 10.7 years. Surgically altered anatomy was present: Billroth I gastrectomy (2), Billroth II gastrectomy (13), and gastrectomy with Roux-en Y reconstruction (18). Seventy-eight (42.6%) patients had periampullary diverticulum. Prior ES had been performed in 40 (21.9%) patients. The mean follow-up period was 43.5 ± 19.7 months (range 11-78). Eight (4.4%) patients had stone recurrence. There was rare stone recurrence after initial ESLBD treatment and native gastrointestinal anatomy. Univariate and multivariate analyses showed that prior ES and previous history of stone recurrence were predictive of stone recurrence (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

At mid-term outcome, ESLBD is associated with a low rate of recurrent bile duct stones, although long-term follow up is needed.

Small sphincterotomy combined with endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation vs sphincterotomy alone for removal of common bile duct stones

AIM: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of endoscopic papillary large diameter balloon dilation (EPLBD) following limited endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) and EST alone for removal of large common bile duct (CBD) stones.

METHODS: We retrospectively compared EST + EPLBD (group A, n = 64) with EST alone (group B, n = 89) for the treatment of large or multiple bile duct stones. The success rate of stone clearance, procedure-related complications and incidents, frequency of mechanical lithotripsy use, and recurrent stones were recorded.

RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups regarding periampullary diverticula (35.9% vs 34.8%, P > 0.05), pre-cut sphincterotomy (6.3% vs 6.7%, P > 0.05), size (12.1 ± 2.0 mm vs 12.9 ± 2.6 mm, P > 0.05) and number (2.2 ± 1.9 vs 2.4 ± 2.1, P > 0.05) of stones or the diameters of CBD (15.1 ± 3.3 mm vs 15.4 ± 3.6 mm, P > 0.05). The rates of overall stone removal and stone removal in the first session were not significantly different between the two groups [62/64 (96.9%) vs 84/89 (94.4%), P > 0.05; and 58/64 (90.6%) vs 79/89 (88.8%), P > 0.05, respectively]. The rates of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis and hyperamylasemia were not significantly different between the two groups [3/64 (4.7%) vs 4/89 (4.5%), P > 0.05; 7/64 (10.9%) vs 9/89 (10.1%), P > 0.05, respectively]. There were no cases of perforation, acute cholangitis, or cholecystitis in the two groups. The rate of bleeding and the recurrence of CBD stones were significantly lower in group A than in group B [1/64 (1.6%) vs 5/89 (5.6%), P < 0.05; 1/64 (1.6%) vs 6/89 (6.7%), P < 0.05, respectively].

CONCLUSION: EST + EPLBD is an effective and safe endoscopic approach for removing large or multiple CBD stones.

Efficacy and safety of endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation for large bile duct stones in elderly patients

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive interventions for choledocholithiasis are preferable in elderly patients because they tend to have multiple underlying disorders or a decreased activity of daily living. Endoscopic sphincterotomy and endoscopic papillary balloon dilation have been recognized as first-line treatments for choledocholithiasis excluding difficult cases such as large stones or multiple stones. Recently, the safety and efficacy of endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation (EPLBD) for difficult choledocholithiasis cases have been reported, although scarcely in elderly patients.

AIMS

To investigate whether EPLBD can be safety and effectively performed in patients aged 75 years or older.

METHODS

The medical records of 165 patients who underwent EPLBD from November 2006 to August 2013 were analyzed retrospectively. The patients were divided into 2 groups: Group A (≥ 75 years); Group B (<75 years).

RESULTS

Some underlying diseases were significantly more common in Group A than in Group B (P < 0.05). However, there was no significant difference in the success rates in the first session (96.2 vs 95.0 %, P = 0.970) and in the final success rates (100 % in both groups) between Group A and Group B. The adverse event rates (2.9 vs 5.0 %, P = 0.783) and recurrence rates of choledocholithiasis (6.7 vs 10.0 %, P = 0.444) were not significantly different. Regarding patients with an altered anatomy, the EPLBD outcome was not significantly different.

CONCLUSION

EPLBD can be safely performed for elderly patients similarly to younger patients.

Advances in the endoscopic management of common bile duct stones

Extraction of common bile duct stones by endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography generally involves biliary sphincterotomy, endoscopic papillary balloon dilation or a combination of both. Endoscopic papillary large-balloon dilation after sphincterotomy has increased the safety of large stone extraction. Cholangioscopically directed electrohydraulic and laser lithotripsy using single-operator mother-daughter systems or direct peroral cholangioscopy using ultraslim endoscopes are increasingly utilized for the management of refractory stones. In this Review, we focus on advances in endoscopic approaches and techniques, with a special emphasis on management strategies for 'difficult' common bile duct stones.

Endoscopic large balloon sphincteroplasty is a useful, safe adjunct for difficult to treat choledocholithiasis

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to assess the safety and efficacy of large balloon sphincteroplasty when used in conjunction with endoscopic biliary sphincterotomy during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) for therapy of choledocholithiasis.

METHODS

A retrospective audit of all ERCP's performed for choledocholithiasis between January 2012 and October 2013 at one institution was performed. Procedures that utilized large balloon sphincteroplasty were compared with those underwent standard endoscopic stone extraction. Outcomes including stone clearance rate for the individual procedure type, post-ERCP complications and need for surgical exploration of the bile duct were documented.

RESULTS

A total of 346 procedures on 306 patients that met the inclusion criteria were identified. Fifty-four (15.6%) procedures included large balloon sphincteroplasty and were compared with 292 (84.4%) procedures that used standard balloon extraction techniques. Despite those patients in the large balloon sphincteroplasty group having a higher rate of previous ERCP (33.3% versus 19.5%, P = 0.031) and a larger proportion of patients with stones greater than 10 mm (40.3% versus 11.3%, P < 0.001), the overall initial clearance rate was similar at 83%. Ultimately, only 14 out of 306 (4.6%) of all patients required surgical intervention. There was no significant difference in the rate of post-ERCP pancreatitis between the two groups (5.6% versus 3.8%, P = 0.466).

CONCLUSION

Large balloon sphincteroplasty of the sphincter of Oddi is a safe and effective adjunct to endoscopic biliary sphincterotomy in difficult to treat choledocholithiasis. The current study demonstrated large balloon sphincteroplasty did not result in more complications despite a tendency to being used for larger stones.

Endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation reduces the need for mechanical lithotripsy in patients with large bile duct stones: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background. Removal of large stones can be challenging and frequently requires the use of mechanical lithotripsy (ML). Endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation (EPLBD) following endoscopic sphincterotomy (ES) is a technique that appears to be safe and effective. However, data comparing ES + EPLBD with ES alone have not conclusively shown superiority of either technique. Objective. To assess comparative efficacies and rate of adverse events of these methods. Method. Studies were identified by searching nine medical databases for reports published between 1994 and 2013, using a reproducible search strategy. Only studies comparing ES and ES + EPLBD with regard to large bile duct stone extraction were included. Pooling was conducted by both fixed-effects and random-effects models. Risk ratio (RR) estimates with 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated. Results. Seven studies (involving 902 patients) met the inclusion criteria; 3 of 7 studies were prospective trials. Of the 902 patients, 463 were in the ES + EPLBD group, whereas 439 underwent ES alone. There were no differences noted between the groups with regard to overall stone clearance (98% versus 95%, RR  =  1.01 [0.97, 1.05]; P  = 0.60) and stone clearance at the 1st session (87% versus 79%, RR = 1.11 [0.98, 1.25]; P  = 0.11). ES + EPLBD was associated with a reduced need for ML compared to ES alone (15% versus 32%; RR  =  0.49 [0.32, 0.74]; P  =  0.0008) and was also associated with a reduction in the overall rate of adverse events (11% versus 18%; RR = 0.58 [0.41, 0.81]; P  = 0.001). Conclusions. ES + EPLBD has similar efficacy to ES alone while significantly reducing the need for ML. Further, ES + EPLBD appears to be safe, with a lower rate of adverse events than traditional ES. ES + EPLBD should be considered as a first-line technique in the management of large bile duct stones.

Endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation for the retrieval of bile duct stones after prior Billroth II gastrectomy

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Endoscopic retrieval of large common bile duct (CBD) stones is often difficult in patients who have undergone Billroth II gastrectomy, as anatomic alterations may present technical barriers to successful cannulation and increase procedure-related complications. Endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation (EPLBD) can be an alternative technique for the removal of difficult stones. Accordingly, the aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of EPLBD for CBD stone extraction in patients with Billroth II gastrectomy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

From July 2006 to November 2011, 30 patients who underwent EPLBD with limited endoscopic sphincterotomy (EPLBD + ES) or EPLBD alone for the treatment of large CBD stones (≥10 mm) after Billroth II gastrectomy were retrospectively reviewed. A large balloon dilator (12-18 mm) was used to dilate the ampullary orifice.

RESULTS

Selective cannulation was successful in 25 patients (83.3%) with a standard catheter. Of the 30 subjects, EPLBD + ES was performed in 19 and EPLBD alone in 11. The mean bile duct diameter was 17.7 ± 4.3 mm (range, 11-31 mm), and mean size of balloon dilation was 14.5 ± 2.6 mm (range, 12-18 mm). Stone removal was successfully completed in 29 patients (96.7%). Successful stone retrieval during the first session was achieved in 27 patients (90.0%). Two cases (6.7%) of mild pancreatitis responded to conservative treatment, and no perforation or mortality was encountered.

CONCLUSIONS

EPLBD with or without needle knife (NK) sphincterotomy seems to be a safe and feasible modality for CBD stone retrieval in patients with prior Billroth II gastrectomy.

Small Endoscopic Sphincterotomy plus Large-Balloon Dilation for Removal of Large Common Bile Duct Stones during ERCP

Objective: This study compared the therapeutic benefits and complication rates of small endoscopic sphincterotomy plus large-balloon dilation (ESLBD) with those of endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) alone for large bile duct stones.

Methods: We compared prospectively ESLBD group (n=63) with conventional EST group (n=69) for the treatment of large bile duct stones (≥15mm). Mechanical lithotripsy was performed when the stone could not be removed using a normal basket. We compared the rates of stone removal, frequency of mechanical lithotripsy use, procedure-related complications, and recurrent stones.

Results: A total of 132 patients were reviewed in the study. The mean age of the patients was 67.9 years. The two groups showed significant differences in complete stone removal during the first session (80.9 vs. 60.8%; P = 0.046), the use of mechanical lithotripsy (7.94 vs. 24.6%; P = 0.041), and less duration of admission (P =0.045). After ERCP, there were some instances of oozing in both groups, All patients recovered completely, 14 patients had recurrent common bile duct stones among the follow-up duration.

Conclusion: The ESLBD technique seems to be a feasible and safe alternative technique for conventional EST and EBD and has no more Post-ERCP complications.

Endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation for the removal of bile duct stones

Endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation (EPLBD) with endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) has been widely used as the alternative to EST along with endoscopic mechanical lithotripsy (EML) for the removal of large or difficult bile duct stones. Furthermore, EPLBD without EST was recently introduced as its simplified alternative technique. Thus, we systematically searched PubMed, Medline, the Cochrane Library and EMBASE, and analyzed all gathered data of EPLBD with and without EST, respectively, by using a single standardized definition, reviewing relevant literatures, published between 2003 and June 2013, where it was performed with large-diameter balloons (12-20 mm). The outcomes, including the initial success rate, the rate of needs for EML, and the overall success rate, and adverse events were assessed in each and compared between both of two procedures: “EPLBD with EST” and “EPLBD without EST”. A total of 2511 procedures from 30 published articles were included in EPLBD with EST, while a total of 413 procedures from 3 published articles were included in EPLBD without EST. In the results of outcomes, the overall success rate was 96.5% in EPLBD with EST and 97.2% in EPLBD without EST, showing no significant difference between both of them. The initial success rate (84.0% vs 76.2%, P < 0.001) and the success rate of EPLBD without EML (83.2% vs 76.7%, P = 0.001) was significantly higher, while the rate of use of EML was significantly lower (14.1% vs 21.6%, P < 0.001), in EPLBD with EST. The rate of overall adverse events, pancreatitis, bleeding, perforation, other adverse events, surgery for adverse events, and fatal adverse events were 8.3%, 2.4%, 3.6%, 0.6%, 1.7%, 0.2% and 0.2% in EPLBD with EST and 7.0%, 3.9%, 1.9%, 0.5%, 0.7%, 0% and 0% in EPLBD without EST, respectively, showing no significant difference between both of them. In conclusion, 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.

Endoscopic papillary balloon dilation: Revival of the old technique

Radiologists first described the removal of bile duct stones using balloon dilation in the early 1980s. Recently, there has been renewed interest in endoscopic balloon dilation with a small balloon to avoid the complications of endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) in young patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy. However, there is a disparity in using endoscopic balloon papillary dilation (EPBD) between the East and the West, depending on the origin of the studies. In the early 2000s, EST followed by endoscopic balloon dilation with a large balloon was introduced to treat large or difficult biliary stones. Endoscopic balloon dilation with a large balloon has generally been recognized as an effective and safe method, unlike EPBD. However, fatal complications have occurred in patients with endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation (EPLBD). The safety of endoscopic balloon dilation is still a debatable issue. Moreover, guidelines of indications and techniques have not been established in performing endoscopic balloon dilation with a small balloon or a large balloon. In this article, we discuss the issue of conventional and large balloon endoscopic dilation. We also suggest the indications and optimal techniques of EPBD and EPLBD.

Endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation in patients with periampullary diverticula

AIM: To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation (EPLBD) for bile duct stone extraction in patients with periampullary diverticula.

METHODS: The records of 223 patients with large common bile duct stones (≥ 10 mm) who underwent EPLBD (12-20 mm balloon diameter) with or without limited endoscopic sphincterotomy (ES) from July 2006 to April 2011 were retrospectively reviewed. Of these patients, 93 (41.7%) had periampullary diverticula (PAD), which was categorized into three types. The clinical variables of EPLBD with limited ES (EPLBD + ES) and EPLBD alone were analyzed according to the presence of PAD.

RESULTS: Patients with PAD were significantly older than those without (75.2 ± 8.8 years vs 69.7 ± 10.9 years, P = 0.000). The rates of overall stone removal and complete stone removal in the first session were not significantly different between the PAD and non-PAD groups, however, there was significantly less need for mechanical lithotripsy in the PAD group (3.2% vs 11.5%, P = 0.026). Overall stone removal rates, complete stone removal rates in the first session and the use of mechanical lithotripsy were not significantly different between EPLBD + ES and EPLBD alone in patients with PAD (96.6% vs 97.1%; 72.9% vs 88.2%; and 5.1% vs 0%, respectively). No significant differences with respect to the rates of pancreatitis, perforation, and bleeding were observed between EPLBD + ES and EPLBD alone in the PAD group (3.4% vs 14.7%, P = 0.095; 0% vs 0%; and 3.4% vs 8.8%, P = 0.351, respectively).

CONCLUSION: EPLBD with limited ES and EPLBD alone are safe and effective modalities for common bile duct stone removal in patients with PAD, regardless of PAD subtypes.

Recent advances in endoscopic management of difficult bile duct stones

Endoscopic treatment is now recognized worldwide as the first-line treatment for bile duct stones. Endoscopic sphincterotomy combined with basket and/or balloon catheter is generally carried out for stone extraction. However, some stones are refractory to treatment under certain circumstances, necessitating additional/other therapeutic modalities. Large bile duct stones are typically treated by mechanical lithotripsy. However, if this fails, laser or electrohydraulic lithotripsy (EHL) is carried out under the guidance of conventional mother-baby cholangioscopy. More recently, direct cholangioscopy using an ultrathin gastroscope and the newly developed single-use cholangioscope system - the SpyGlass direct visualization system - are also used. In addition, extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy has also been used for stone fragmentation. Such fragmentation techniques are effective in cases with impacted stones, including Mirizzi syndrome. Most recently, endoscopic papillary large balloon dilationhas been introduced as an easy and effective technique for treating large and multiple stones. In cases of altered anatomy, it is often difficult to reach the papilla; in such cases, a percutaneous transhepatic approach, such as EHL or laser lithotripsy under percutaneous transhepatic cholangioscopy, can be a treatment option. Moreover, enteroscopy has recently been used to reach the papilla. Furthermore, an endoscopic ultrasound-guided procedure has been attempted most recently. In elderly patients and those with very poor general condition, biliary stenting only is sometimes carried out with or without giving subsequent dissolution agents.

Endoscopic management of bile duct stones: residual bile duct stones after surgery, cholangitis, and "difficult stones"

Endoscopic treatment has become, according to the latest recommendations, the standard treatment for common bile duct stones (CBDS), although in certain situations, surgical clearance of the common duct at the time of laparoscopic cholecystectomy is still considered a possible alternative. The purpose of this article is not to compare endoscopic with surgical treatment of CBDS, but to describe the various techniques of endoscopic treatment, detailing their preferential indications and the various treatment options that must sometimes be considered when faced with "difficult calculi" of the CBD. The different techniques of lithotripsy and the role of biliary drainage with plastic or metallic stents will be detailed as well as papillary balloon dilatation and particularly the technique of sphincterotomy with macrodilatation of the sphincter of Oddi (SMSO), a recently described approach that has changed the strategy for endoscopic management of CBDS. Finally, the overall strategy for endoscopic management of CBDS, with description of different techniques, will be exposed.

Factors predictive of adverse events following endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation: results from a multicenter series

BACKGROUND

Lack of established guidelines for endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation (EPLBD) may be a reason for aversion of its use in removal of large common bile duct (CBD) stones.

AIMS

We sought to identify factors predictive of adverse events (AEs) following EPLBD.

METHODS

This multicenter retrospective study investigated 946 consecutive patients who underwent attempted removal of CBD stones ≥10 mm in size using EPLBD (balloon size 12-20 mm) with or without endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) at 12 academic medical centers in Korea and Japan.

RESULTS

Ninety-five (10.0 %) patients exhibited AEs including bleeding in 56, pancreatitis in 24, perforation in nine, and cholangitis in six; 90 (94.7 %) of these were classified as mild or moderate in severity. There were four deaths, three as a result of perforation and one due to delayed massive bleeding. Causative factors identified in fatal cases were full-EST and continued balloon inflation despite a persistent waist seen fluoroscopically. Multivariate analyses showed that cirrhosis (OR 8.03, p = 0.003), length of EST (full-EST: OR 6.22, p < 0.001) and stone size (≥16 mm: OR 4.00, p < 0.001) were associated with increased bleeding, and distal CBD stricture (OR 17.08, p < 0.001) was an independent predictor for perforation. On the other hand, balloon size was associated with deceased pancreatitis (≥14 mm: OR 0.27, p = 0.015).

CONCLUSIONS

EPLBD appears to be a safe and effective therapeutic approach for retrieval of large stones in patients without distal CBD strictures and when performed without full-EST.

Modern management of common bile duct stones

It is imperative for gastroenterologists to understand the different formations of bile duct stones and the various medical treatments available. To minimize the complications of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), it is critical to appropriately assess the risk of bile duct stones before intervention. Biliary endoscopists should be comfortable with the basic techniques of stone removal, including sphincterotomy, mechanical lithotripsy, and stent placement. It is important to be aware of advanced options, including laser and electrohydraulic stone fragmentation, and papillary dilatation for problematic cases. The timing and need for ERCP in those who require a cholecystectomy is also a consideration.

Therapeutic endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and instrumentation

Over the last 40 years, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) has evolved from being a purely diagnostic to a primarily therapeutic procedure. The 2 recent developments in ERCP-based stricture management include the increased use of cholangioscopy-guided sampling and self-expandable metal stents. The role of ERCP in pancreatic diseases continues to evolve; ERCP-based pancreatic therapy requires advanced endoscopic expertise and is associated with a high rate of postprocedure complications. Therefore, a multidisciplinary team approach at a center with expertise in pancreatic therapy should serve as a basis for very careful patient selection.

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography for stone burden in the bile and pancreatic ducts

Stones in biliary and pancreatic ducts are entities that plague hundreds of thousands of patients worldwide every year. Symptoms can be mild (pain) to life threatening (cholangitis, severe acute pancreatitis). In the last few decades, management of these stones has transitioned from exclusively surgical to now predominantly endoscopic techniques. This article reviews the evolution of endoscopic techniques used in the management of stones in the common bile duct and pancreatic duct.

Endoscopic extraction of large common bile duct stones: A review article

Since therapeutic endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography replaced surgery as the first approach in cases of choledocolithiasis, a plethora of endoscopic techniques and devices appeared in order to facilitate rapid, safe and effective bile duct stones extraction. Nowadays, endoscopic sphincterotomy combined with balloon catheters and/or baskets is the routine endoscopic technique for stone extraction in the great majority of patients. Large common bile duct stones are treated conventionally with mechanical lithotripsy, while the most serious complication of the procedure is “basket and stone impaction” that is predominately resolved surgically. In cases of difficult, impacted, multiple or intrahepatic stones, more sophisticated procedures have been used. Electrohydraulic lithotripsy and laser lithotripsy are performed using conventional mother-baby scope systems, ultra-thin cholangioscopes, thin endoscopes and ultimately using the novel single use, single operator SpyGlass Direct Visualization System, in order to deliver intracorporeal shock wave energy to fragment the targeted stone, with very good outcomes. Recently, large balloon dilation after endoscopic sphincterotomy confirmed its effectiveness in the extraction of large stones in a plethora of trials. When compared with mechanical lithotripsy or with balloon dilation alone, it proved to be superior. Moreover, dilation is an ideal alternative in cases of altered anatomy where access to the papilla is problematic. Endoscopic sphincterotomy followed by large balloon dilation represents the onset of a new era in large bile duct stone extraction and the management of “impaction” because it seems that is an effective, inexpensive, less traumatic, safe and easy method that does not require sophisticated apparatus and can be performed widely by skillful endoscopists. When complete extraction of large stones is unsuccessful, the drainage of the common bile duct is mandatory either for bridging to the final therapy or as a curative therapy for very elderly patients with short life expectancy. Placing of more than one plastic endoprostheses is better while the administration of Ursodiol is ineffective. The great majority of patients with large stones can be treated endoscopically. In cases of unsuccessful stone extraction using balloons, baskets, mechanical lithotripsy, electrohydraulic or laser lithotripsy and large balloon dilation, the patient should be referred for extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy or a percutaneous approach and finally surgery.

Prospective evaluation of the clinical utility of ERCP-guided cholangiopancreatoscopy with a new direct visualization system

BACKGROUND

Older systems for cholangiopancreatoscopy have demonstrated improved diagnostic and therapeutic abilities over standard ERCP but have shown limited feasibility. The SpyGlass Direct Visualization System addresses many of the shortcomings of the older platforms, but its potential advantages have not been rigorously evaluated.

OBJECTIVE

To prospectively evaluate the feasibility, clinical efficacy, and safety of the SpyGlass system.

DESIGN

Prospective cohort study.

SETTING

Tertiary care center.

PATIENTS

All patients undergoing cholangiopancreatoscopy at our institution.

INTERVENTIONS

Cholangiopancreatoscopy with the SpyGlass system.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Procedure success, defined as complete stone clearance for stone cases. For nonstone-related lesions, success was defined when all 3 of the following were met: (1) advancement of the SpyScope to the desired target, (2) adequate visualization, and (3) successful applications of all necessary diagnostic and/or therapeutic maneuvers.

RESULTS

Overall, SpyGlass was successful in 70 of 75 patients (93.3%). In patients with biliary stones, complete stone clearance was achieved in 24 of 26 patients (92.3%). Cholangioscopy for nonstone-related indications was successful in 43 of 44 patients (97.7%). Pancreatoscopy was attempted in 5 patients and was successful in 3 (60%). The mean total procedure time (standard ERCP plus SpyGlass) was 64.3 minutes, the total SpyGlass time was 27.5 minutes, the mean SpyGlass visualization time was 14.2 minutes, the mean SpyBite sampling time was 12.1 minutes, the mean Spy therapy time was 8.4 minutes, and the mean set-up time was 5 minutes. There were 4 adverse events (4.8%).

LIMITATIONS

Single-center experience, no comparison group, potential for selection bias.

CONCLUSIONS

ERCP-guided cholangiopancreatoscopy with the SpyGlass system is technically feasible and can be successfully and safely performed in the vast majority of patients. (

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT00861198.).

Can a small endoscopic sphincterotomy plus a large-balloon dilation reduce the use of mechanical lithotripsy in patients with large bile duct stones?

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) with endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) is technically difficult in the patients with large extrahepaic bile duct stones. Small endoscopic sphincterotomy combined with large-balloon dilation (ESLBD) currently seems to be a promising alternative for patients with difficult bile duct stones that cannot be extracted by EST. This study compared the therapeutic benefits and complication rates of ESLBD with those of EST alone.

METHODS

This study investigated 149 patients treated for stones (≥10 mm) or multiple stones in the extrahepatic bile duct. The ESLBD group (n = 72) was compared with the conventional EST group (n = 77). Mechanical lithotripsy was performed when the stone could not be removed using a Dormia basket.

RESULTS

The two groups did not differ significantly in terms of mean bile duct diameter, common bile duct angulation, and presence of periampullary diverticulum. The ESLBD group compared with the EST-alone group had similar outcomes in terms of overall successful stone removal but showed significant differences in complete stone removal during the first session (87.5 vs. 74.0%; P = 0.036) and the use of mechanical lithotripsy for large bile duct stones (≥15 mm) (17.9 vs. 45.8%; P = 0.026). For the patients with a periampullary diverticulum, ESLBD and EST showed similar results only for efficacy and complications.

CONCLUSIONS

The ESLBD technique may be a safe, effective alternative to conventional EST for endoscopic removal of large common bile duct stones, and it can reduce the use of mechanical lithotripsy compared with EST alone.

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.

Large balloon dilation for the treatment of recurrent bile duct stones in patients with previous endoscopic sphincterotomy: preliminary results

OBJECTIVE

Endoscopic sphincterotomy (ES) is an established method to treat common bile duct (CBD) stones. Inevitable sequence after ES is a substantial risk of recurrent choledocholithiasis and occasional difficulty in removal of large or multiple CBD stones after ES even when mechanical lithotripsy (ML) is employed. In turn, a new endoscopic technique, large balloon dilation (LBD) after ES, has been introduced. The objective was to analyze the efficacy and safety of LBD in patients with recurrent bile duct stones who have previously undergone ES.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

From December 2007 to November 2009, 24 patients with recurrent choledocholithiasis and a history of ES were treated with LBD without additional ES. The size of the balloon for LBD was 15-20 mm and the duration of balloon dilation was 30 s.

RESULTS

Successful stone removal and complications such as perforation, pancreatitis, and bleeding were evaluated as procedure-related outcomes. Postoperative CBD stone recurrence was evaluated as the short term outcome. Complete duct clearance rate without using ML was 96% (23/24 patients) and all stone removal was achieved in one session. Failure to remove stones occurred in one (4.2%) patient. There were no procedure-related complications although one case of aspiration pneumonia occurred after the endoscopy. Recurrent choledocholithiasis after LBD was observed in 12.5% (3/24) of the cases overall.

CONCLUSIONS

LBD is an effective and safe method in patients with recurrent choledocholithiasis not only to treat large stones but also to prevent further recurrence.

Endoscopic management of biliary ductal stones

Bile duct stone management has greatly changed in the past 2 decades. Open surgical techniques have mostly been replaced by transoral endoscopic techniques. Routine common bile duct stones can be managed by standard biliary endoscopic sphincterotomy and extraction. Various advanced transoral techniques can also manage most difficult ductal stones. In skilled centers, laparoscopic ductal stone management has assumed a back-up role.