Twenty-Second versus Sixty-Second Dilation Duration in Endoscopic Papillary Balloon Dilation for the Treatment of Small Common Bile Duct Stones: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Multicenter Trial

The therapeutic effect of balloon dilatation with different duration for biliary duct calculi: A network meta-analysis

Objective:

To systematically evaluate the application effect of endoscopic papillary balloon dilatation (EPBD) with different balloon dilatation duration for biliary duct calculi, and find the most appropriate dilatation duration for EPBD using a network meta-analysis.

Materials and Methods:

PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library databases were searched for relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published up to August 2020. Node split, consistency and inconsistency models analysis were all conducted in network meta-analysis.

Results:

Eighteen RCTs with 2256 participants were finally analysed. EPBD was divided into four categories based on balloon dilatation duration, including EPBD (P0.5), EPBD (>0.5, ≤1), EPBD (1, ≤2) and EPBD (>2, ≤5). Compared with EPBD (>0.5, ≤1), EPBD (>2, ≤5) had a lower risk of early complications (odds ratio [OR] = 0.23, 95% credible interval [CI] = 0.05–0.96) and post-endoscopic procedure pancreatitis (PEP) (OR = 0.17, 95% CI = 0.03–0.72). Endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) tended to have less need for mechanical lithotripsy (OR = 0.37, 95% CI = 0.16–0.88) and PEP (OR = 0.26, 95% CI = 0.08–0.71) than EPBD (>0.5, ≤1). EPBD (>2, ≤5) was the safest endoscopic procedure with respect to early complications (surface area under cumulative ranking curves [SUCRA] = 79.0) and PEP (SUCRA = 85.3). In addition, EPBD (>2, ≤5) and EST had the highest probability of being the best (SUCRA = 82.6) and the worst (SUCRA = 10.8), respectively, regarding late complications.

Conclusion:

EPBD and EST are two methods used to treat uncomplicated choledocholithiasis (stone diameter <10 mm and stone number <3). The extension of balloon dilatation duration has no significant influence on successful stone removal in the first endoscopic session or preventing the need for mechanical lithotripsy. However, it can reduce the risk of early complications, especially PEP. What's more, EPBD seems to have less late complications compared with EST, and the effect of prolonged balloon dilatation duration on late complications still needs to be further explored. Therefore, 2–5 min is the recommended dilatation duration range for EPBD using balloon with ≤10 mm diameter. Further research based on a specific population and with a longer follow-up time are needed.

The ballooning time in endoscopic papillary balloon dilation for removal of bile duct stones: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

So far, there was no consensus regarding balloon dilation time in endoscopic papillary balloon dilation (EPBD). Thus, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the stone removal and overall complication rates of dilation of short and long duration with EPBD.

METHODS

The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; Cochrane Library), Web of Science, EMBASE Databases, and PubMed were searched from their inception to December 1, 2019 for all articles regarding balloon dilation time in EPBD for removal of bile duct stones. The data were extracted and the methodology quality was assessed. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan5.3 software.

RESULTS

Four studies involving a total of 1553 patients were included, 918 in the short dilation group and 635 in the long dilation group. The results of meta-analysis showed that there was no significant difference between the 2 different dilation groups in the complete stone removal in randomized controlled trails (RCTs) group (P = .10) and non-RCTs group (P = 0.45), mechanical lithotripsy requirement (RCTs: P = .92; non-RCTs: P = .47), pancreatitis (RCTs: P = .48; non-RCTs: P = .45), bleeding (RCTs: P = .95; non-RCTs: P = .60), infection of biliary (RCTs: P = .58; non-RCTs: P = .29), perforation (RCTs: P = .32; non-RCTs: P = .37).

CONCLUSION

This systematic review suggests that there no significant difference in the efficacy and safety of dilation of short and long duration for removal of bile duct stones with EPBD.

Is endoscopic papillary balloon dilatation really a risk factor for post-ERCP pancreatitis?

Endoscopic papillary balloon dilatation (EPBD) is useful for decreasing early complications of endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography (ERCP), including bleeding, biliary infection, and perforation, but it is generally avoided in Western countries because of a relatively high reported incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP). However, as the efficacy of endoscopic papillary large-balloon dilatation (EPLBD) becomes widely recognized, EPBD is attracting attention. Here we investigate whether EPBD is truly a risk factor for PEP, and seek safer and more effective EPBD procedures by reviewing past studies. We reviewed thirteen randomised control trials comparing EPBD and endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) and ten studies comparing direct EPLBD and EST. Three randomized controlled trials of EPBD showed significantly higher incidence of PEP than EST, but no study of EPLBD did. Careful analysis of these studies suggested that longer and higher-pressure inflation of balloons might decrease PEP incidence. The paradoxical result that EPBD with small-calibre balloons increases PEP incidence while EPLBD does not may be due to insufficient papillary dilatation in the former. Insufficient dilatation could cause the high incidence of PEP through the use of mechanical lithotripsy and stress on the papilla at the time of stone removal. Sufficient dilation of the papilla may be useful in preventing PEP.

Biliary tract pressure before and after endoscopic papillary balloon dilation treatment for common bile duct stones

AIM: To determine the biliary tract pressure before and after endoscopic papillary balloon dilation (EPBD) treatment for common bile duct stones.

METHODS: Clinical data for 96 patients with common bile duct stones who successfully underwent EPBD and biliary manometry from September 2011 to January 2014 were retrospectively analyzed.

RESULTS: Biliary tract pressure was significantly higher in patients with common bile duct stones than in healthy controls, which could be relieved by EPBD. Biliary tract pressure in patients who underwent cholecystectomy was higher than in patients with gallbladder stones. After operation, there were 2 cases of hyperamylasemia, 2 cases of acute pancreatitis and 2 cases of mild cholangitis, all of which resolved after non-operative treatment. The incidence of complications was 6.3% (6/96). No serious complications occurred.

CONCLUSION: EPBD treatment can effectively solve biliary obstruction and reduce biliary pressure.