Comparison between endoscopic sphincterotomy vs endoscopic sphincterotomy associated with balloon dilation for removal of bile duct stones: A systematic review and meta-analysis based on randomized controlled trials

Pure cut vs. Endocut in endoscopic biliary sphincterotomy: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

Background and study aims Biliary sphincterotomy is a crucial step in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), a procedure known to carry a 5% to 10% risk of complications. The relationship between Pure cut, Endocut, post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) and bleeding is unclear. This systematic review and meta-analysis compared these two current types and their relationships with adverse events. Patients and methods This systematic review involved searching articles in multiple databases until August 2023 comparing pure cut versus Endocut in biliary sphincterotomy. The meta-analysis followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA). Results A total of 987 patients from four randomized controlled trials were included. Overall pancreatitis: A higher risk of pancreatitis was found in the Endocut group than in the Pure cut group ( P =0.001, RD=0.04 [range, 0.01 to 0.06]; I 2 =29%). Overall immediate bleeding: Statistical significance was found to favor Endocut, ( P =0.05; RD=-0.15 [range, -0.29 to -0.00]; I 2 =93%). No statistical significance between current modes was found in immediate bleeding without endoscopic intervention ( P =0.10; RD=-0.13 [range, -0.29 to 0.02]; I 2 =88%), immediate bleeding with endoscopic intervention ( P =0.06; RD=-0.07 [range, -0.14 to 0.00]; I 2 =76%), delayed bleeding (P=0.40; RD=0.01 [range, -0.02 to 0.05]; I 2 =72%), zipper cut ( P =0.58; RD=-0.03 [range, -0.16 to 0.09]; I 2 =97%), perforation ( P =1.00; RD=0.00 [range, -0.01 to 0.01]; I 2 =0%) and cholangitis ( P =0.77; RD=0.00 [range, -0.01 to 0.02]; I 2 =29%). Conclusions The available data in the literature show that Endocut carries an increased risk for PEP and does not prevent delayed or clinically significant bleeding, although it prevents intraprocedural bleeding. Based on such findings, Pure cut should be the preferred electric current mode for biliary sphincterotomy.

Direct Single-Operator Cholangioscopy and Intraductal Ultrasonography in Patients with Indeterminate Biliary Strictures: A Single Center Experience

The evaluation of biliary strictures poses a challenge due to the low sensitivity of standard diagnostic approaches, but the advent of direct single-operator cholangioscopy (DSOC) has revolutionized this paradigm. Our study aimed to assess the diagnostic performance of DSOC and DSOC-targeted biopsies, intraductal ultrasound (IDUS), and standard brush cytology in patients with indeterminate biliary strictures (IBS). We reviewed patients who underwent advanced diagnostic evaluation for IBS at our endoscopy unit from January 2018 to December 2022, all of whom had previously undergone at least one endoscopic attempt to characterize the biliary stricture. Final diagnoses were established based on surgical pathology and/or clinical and radiological follow-up spanning at least 12 months. A total of 57 patients, with a mean age of 67.2 ± 10.0 years, were included, with a mean follow-up of 18.2 ± 18.1 months. The majority of IBS were located in the distal common bile duct (45.6%), with malignancy confirmed in 35 patients (61.4%). DSOC and IDUS demonstrated significantly higher accuracies (89.5% and 82.7%, respectively) compared to standard cytology (61.5%, p < 0.05). Both DSOC visualization and IDUS exhibited optimal diagnostic yields in differentiating IBS with an acceptable safety profile.

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.

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.

[Modern approaches to the treatment of patients with a complicated form of gallstone disease in the Botkin hospital]

OBJECTIVE

To determine the optimal timing of laparoscopic cholecystectomy in patients with gallstone disease complicated by cholelithiasis after endoscopic retrograde papillosphincterotomy with lithoextraction.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We analyzed treatment outcomes in 229 patients with gallstone disease complicated by cholelithiasis between 2016 and 2020. Simultaneous surgery was performed in 31 patients, early cholecystectomy (after 1-3 days) - in 78 cases, delayed cholecystectomy (after 4-7 days) - in 35 cases and delayed cholecystectomy in 14-30 days after endoscopic retrograde papillosphincterotomy with lithoextraction in 85 cases.

RESULTS

Simultaneous laparoscopic cholecystectomy and surgery in early period after endoscopic retrograde papillosphincterotomy with lithoextraction are followed by less surgery time, few postoperative complications and less hospital-stay.

CONCLUSION

Simultaneous laparoscopic cholecystectomy and early surgery after endoscopic retrograde papillosphincterotomy with lithoextraction are preferred for patients with complicated gallstone disease. However, this requires adherence to strict criteria for patient selection.

Is the use of fully covered metal stents effective in the treatment of difficult lithiasis of the common bile duct?

BACKGROUND

The management of difficult lithiasis of common bile duct (CBD) often requires a multimodal approach. Fully Covered Metal Stents (FCSEMS) could fragment the stones, dilate strictures of the CBD and progressively enlarge the papillary orifice. The aim of the study was to evaluate the efficacy of FCSEMS in the treatment of difficult lithiasis of CBD.

METHODS

All consecutive cases of difficult lithiasis of CBD after an attempt of clearance with complete sphincterotomy were retrospectively considered from 2009 to 2019. Intrahepatic lithiasis cases were excluded. Multivariable analysis (stepwise logistic regression if p value < 0.1 at univariable analysis) was made to understand factors associated with efficacy of FCSEMS in difficult lithiasis of CBD.

RESULTS

163 cases of difficult lithiasis over 1516 cases of lithiasis of CBD (incidence of 11%) were considered. Among eligible patients, 96 (mean age 78 ± 11.9 years, 43% males) placed a FCSEMS during the first ERCP. Mean diameter of stone was 17.5 ± 5.5 mm. An attempt of dilation during the same procedure was made in 18% cases. After removal of the stent, 52 (54%) patients had complete clearance of CBD at cholangiography. The rest of patients (44), subsequently underwent multimodal treatment (final success of 95%). After logistic regression, variables positively associated with clearance of CBD were sex male (OR 3.5) and stent permanence ≥ 30 days (OR 3.2). Diameter of the stone ≥ 2 cm was associated with failure (OR 0.2). 7 post-ERCP pancreatitis, 6 post-sphincterotomy bleeding and 3 cholangitis occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

FCSEMS are useful in the approach of difficult lithiasis of CBD with no significant adverse events associated.

Best practices for prevention of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis

Acute pancreatitis is of one the most common gastroenterology-related indications for hospital admissions worldwide. With the widespread reliance on endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) for the management of pancreaticobiliary conditions, post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) has come to represent an important etiology of acute pancreatitis. Despite many studies aiming to better understand the pathogenesis and prevention of this iatrogenic disorder, findings have been heterogeneous, and considerable variation in clinical practice exists. Herein, we review the literature regarding PEP with the goal to raise awareness of this entity, discuss recent data, and present evidence-based best practices. We believe this manuscript will be useful for gastrointestinal endoscopists as well as other specialists involved in the management of patients with PEP.

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.

Adverse events after biliary sphincterotomy: Does the electric current mode make a difference? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Biliary sphincterotomy is an invasive method that allows access to the bile ducts, however, this procedure is not exempt of complications. Studies in the literature indicate that the mode of electric current used for sphincterotomy may carry different incidences of adverse events such as pancreatitis, hemorrhage, perforation, and cholangitis.

AIM

To evaluate the safety of different modes of electrical current during biliary sphincterotomy based on incidence of adverse events.

METHODS

We searched articles for this systematic review in Medline, EMBASE, Central Cochrane, Lilacs, and gray literature from inception to September 2019. Data from studies describing different types of electric current were meta-analyzed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). The following electric current modalities were evaluated: endocut, blend, pure cut, pure cut followed by blend, monopolar, and bipolar.

RESULTS

A total of 1791 patients from 11 randomized clinical trials evaluating the following comparisons: 1. Endocut vs Blend: No statistical difference in the incidence of bleeding (7% vs 13.4%; RD: -0.11 [-0.31, 0.08], P=0.27, I²=86%), pancreatitis (4.4% vs 3.5%; RD: 0.01 [-0.03, 0.04], P=0.62, I²=48%) and perforation (absence of cases in both arms). 2. Endocut vs Pure cut: Higher incidence of mild bleeding (without drop in hemoglobin levels, clinical repercussion or need for endoscopic intervention) in the pure cut group (9.2% vs 28.8%; RD: -0.19 [-0.27, -0.12], P<0.00001, I²=0%). No statistical difference regarding pancreatitis (5.2% vs 0.9%; RD: 0.05 [-0.01, 0.11], P=0.12, I²=57%), perforation (0.4% vs 0%; RD: 0.00 [-0.01, 0.02], P=0.7, I²=0%) or cholangitis (1.8% vs 3.2%; RD: -0.01 [-0.09, 0.06], P=0,7). 3. Pure cut vs blend: higher incidence of mild bleeding in the pure cut group (40.4% vs 16.7%; RD: 0.24 [0.15, 0.33], P<0.00001, I²=0%). No statistical difference concerning incidence of pancreatitis or cholangitis. 4. Pure cut vs Pure cut followed by Blend: No statistical difference regarding incidence of bleeding (22.5% vs 11.7%; RD: -0.10 [-0.24, 0.04], P=0.18, I²=61%) and pancreatitis (8.9% vs 14.8%; RD 0.06 [-0.02, 0.13], P=0.12, I²=0%). 5. Blend vs pure cut followed by blend: no statistical difference regarding incidence of bleeding and pancreatitis (11.3% vs 10.4%; RD -0.01 [-0.11, 0.09], P=0.82, I²=0%). 6. Monopolar vs bipolar: higher incidence of pancreatitis in the monopolar mode group (12% vs 0%; RD 0.12 [0.02, 0.22], P=0.01).

CONCLUSION

Pure cut carries higher incidences of mild bleeding compared to endocut and blend. However, this modality might present a lower incidence of pancreatitis. The monopolar mode elicits higher rates of pancreatitis in comparison with the bipolar mode. There is no difference in incidence of cholangitis or perforation between different types of electric current. There is a lack of evidence in the literature to recommend one method over the others, therefore new studies are warranted. As there is no perfect electric current mode, the choice in clinical practice must be based on the patient risk factors.

Cholecystostomy as an Exclusive Access to Remove Cystic, Common Hepatic, and Common Bile Duct Stones

OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this article was to evaluate the feasibility and efficacy of percutaneous fluoroscopic-guided stone retrieval from the cystic duct and antegrade common bile duct (CBD) stone advancement into the duodenum exclusively through a cholecystostomy tube. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Twenty-one patients with acute cholecystitis and choledocholithiasis or an impacted cystic duct stone who underwent percutaneous cholecystostomy tube placement were retrospectively enrolled in this study. The patients had a contra-indication for cholecystectomy (17 patients because of comorbidities and one who declined surgery) or had failed endoscopic retrograde stone removal attempts (three patients). RESULTS. The 21 patients underwent subsequent percutaneous CBD (17 patients) and cystic duct (nine patients) stone removal on follow-up sessions through the percutaneous cholecystostomy track using moderate sedation. A total of 32 stone removal procedures were performed. Seventeen patients underwent balloon dilatation sphincterotomy, after which the CBD stones were pushed forward into the duodenum using a compliant balloon. Seven patients also had stone removal from the cystic duct by a stone retrieval basket. The primary technical success rate for removal of all CBD and cystic duct stones was 76%. The secondary technical success rate was 100%. The clinical success rate was 74%. All patients tolerated the procedures well without major complication. The clinical follow-up interval ranged from 2 to 2310 days (median, 30 days), with no incidence of postprocedural complications. CONCLUSION. Percutaneous transcholecystic common bile and cystic duct stone removal through an existing cholecystostomy access is a safe and effective procedure that is well tolerated.

Cholangioscopy-guided lithotripsy vs. conventional therapy for complex bile duct stones: a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Endoscopic removal of common bile duct stones has a high success rate ranging from 85% to 95%. Bile duct stones >15 mm are difficult and frequently require lithotripsy. Peroral cholangioscopy (POC) allows lithotripsy with similar success rates.

AIM

To determine the efficacy and safety of cholangioscopy-guided lithotripsy used in the treatment of difficult to remove bile duct stones vs. conventional therapy.

METHODS

Search was based in Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central, Lilacs/Bireme. Studies enrolling patients referred for the removal of difficult bile duct stones via POC were considered eligible. Two analyses were carried out separately, one included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and another observational studies.

RESULTS

Forty-six studies were selected (3 RTC and 43 observational). In the analysis there was no statistical significant difference between successful endoscopic clearance (RD=-0.02 CI: -0.17, 0.12/I²=0%), mean fluoroscopy time (MD=-0.14 CI -1.60, 1.32/I²=21%) and adverse events rates (RD=-0.06 CI: -0.14, 0.02/I²=0%), by contrast, the mean procedure time favored conventional therapy with statistical significance (MD=27.89 CI: 16.68, 39.10/I²=0%). In observational studies, the successful endoscopic clearance rate was 88.29% (CI95: 86.9%-90.7%), the first session successful endoscopic clearance rate was 72.7 % (CI95: 69.9%-75.3%), the mean procedure time was 47.50±6 min for session and the number of sessions to clear bile duct was 1.5±0.18. The adverse event rate was 8.7% (CI95: 7%-10.9%).

CONCLUSIONS

For complex common bile duct stones, cholangioscopy-guided lithotripsy has a success rate that is similar to traditional ERCP techniques in terms of therapeutic success, adverse event rate and means fluoroscopy time. Conventional ERCP methods have a shorter mean procedure time.

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.

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, lights and shadows: Handle with care

The role of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) has dramatically changed in the last years, mainly into that of a therapeutic procedure. The treatment of benign biliary disease, like “difficult” choledocolithiasis, with endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation combined with endoscopic sphinterotomy has proven an effective and safe technique. Moreover, safety in ERCP has improved as well, with the prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis and patient-to-patient transmission of infections. The advent of self-expandable metal stenting has radically changed the management of biliopancreatic malignant strictures, while the role for therapy of benign strictures is still controversial. In addition, cholangioscopy (though the direct visualization of the biliopancreatic ductal system) has allowed for characterization of indeterminate biliary strictures and facilitated rescue therapy of large biliary stones deemed removable. Encouraging data from tissue ablation techniques, such as photodynamic therapy and radiofrequency ablation, need to be confirmed by large sample size clinical controlled trials. On the other hand, we have no drug-coated stents yet available to implant and evidence for the use of biodegradable stents is still weak. The competency and privileging of ERCP and endoscopic ultrasonography have been analyzed longer but the switch between the two procedures, at the same time, is becoming ordinary; as such, the endoscopist interested in this field should undergo parallel edification through training plans. Finally, the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy’s statement on non-anesthesiologist administration of propofol for gastrointestinal endoscopy is not actually endorsed by the European Society of Anaesthesiology, having many medical-legal implications in some European countries.