Meta-analysis comparison of endoscopic papillary balloon dilatation and endoscopic sphincteropapillotomy

AIM: To assess endoscopic papillary balloon dilatation (EPBD) and endoscopic sphincteropapillotomy (EST) for common bile duct (CBD) stone removal using a meta-analysis. METHODS: Randomized controlled trials published from 1990 to 2012 comparing EPBD with EST for CBD stone removal were evaluated. This meta-analysis was performed to estimate short-term and long-term com-plications of these two treatments. The fixed random effect model or random effect model was established to analysis the data. Results were obtained by analyz-ing the relative risk, odds ratio, and 95%CI for a given comparison using RevMan 5.1. Statistical significance was defined asP < 0.05. Risk of bias was evaluated us-ing a funnel plot. RESULTS: Of the 1975 patients analyzed, 980 of them were treated with EPBD and 995 were treated with EST. Of the patient population, patients in the EPBDgroup were younger (OR=-1.16, 95%CI:-1.49 to 0.84, P<0.01). There were no significant differences in gender proportion, average size of stones, number of gallstones, previous cholecystectomy, the incidence of duodenal diverticulum, CBD diameter or the total follow-up time between EST and EPBD groups. Com-pared with EST, the total stone clearance in the EPBD group decreased (OR=0.64, 95%CI: 0.42 to 0.96,P=0.03), the use of stone extraction baskets significantly increased (OR=1.91, 95%CI: 1.41 to 2.59, P<0.01), and the incidence of pancreatitis significantly increased (OR=2.79, 95%CI: 1.74 to 4.45, P<0.0001). The incidence of bleeding (OR=0.12, 95%CI: 0.04 to 0.34, P<0.01) and cholecystitis (OR=0.41, 95%CI: 0.20 to 0.84, P=0.02) significantly decreased. The stone re-currence rate also was significantly reduced in EPBD (OR=0.48, 95%CI: 0.26 to 0.90, P=0.02). There were no significant differences between the two groups with the incidence of stone removal at first attempt, hours of operation, total short-term complications and infection, perforation, or acute cholangitis. CONCLUSION: Although the incidence of pancreatitis was higher, the overall stone clearance rate and risk of bleeding was lower with EPBD compared to EST.

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 largeballoon 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.

Nasobiliary drainage after endoscopic papillary balloon dilatation may prevent postoperative pancreatitis

AIM:To evaluate the necessity of endoscopic nasobiliary drainage(ENBD)catheter placement after clearance of common bile duct(CBD)stones.METHODS:Patients enrolled in this study were randomly divided into two groups,according to whether or not they received ENBD after the removal of CBD stones.Group 1(ENBD group)was then subdividedinto three groups:G1a patients received an endoscopic papillary balloon dilatation(EPBD),G1b patients received an endoscopic sphincterotomy(EST),and G1c patients received neither.Group 2(non-ENBD group)patients were also subdivided into three groups(G2a,G2b,and G2c),similar to Group 1.The maximum CBD diameter,the time for C-reactive protein(CRP)to normalize,levels of serum amylase,total serum bilirubin(TB)and alanine aminotransferase(ALT),and postoperative hospitalization duration(PHD)were measured.RESULTS:A total of 218 patients(139 males,79females),with an average age of 60.1±10.8 years,were enrolled in this study.One hundred and thirteen patients who received ENBD were included in Group 1,and 105patients who did not receive ENBD were included in Group 2.The baseline clinical characteristics were similar in both groups.There were no significant differences in post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography(ERCP)-related complications when Groups 1 and 2 were compared.Seventy-seven patients underwent EPBD,and41 received an ENBD tube(G1a)and 36 did not(G2a).Seventy-three patients underwent EST,and 34 patients received an ENBD tube(G1b)and 39 did not(G2b).The remaining 68 patients underwent neither EPBD nor EST;of these patients,38 received an ENBD tube(G1c)and 30 did not(G2c).For each of the three pairs of subgroups(G1a vs G2a,G1b vs G2b,G1c vs G2c),there were no significant differences detected in the PHD or the time to normalization of CRP,TB and ALT.In the EPBD group,the incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis,hyperamylasemia and overall patient complications was significantly higher for G2a(post-ERCP pancreatitis:6/36vs 0/41,P=0.0217;hyperamylasemia:11/36 vs 4/41,P=0.0215;overall patient complications:18/36 vs 7/41,P=0.0029).CONCLUSION:After successful CBD stone clearance,ENBD is only beneficial when an EPBD procedure hasbeen performed.

Endoscopic papillary large balloon dilatation with sphincterotomy is safe and effective for biliary stone removal independent of timing and size of sphincterotomy

AIM To describe the efficacy and safety of endoscopic papillary large balloon dilatation(EPLBD) in the management of bile duct stones in a Western population. METHODS Data was collected from the endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography(ERCP) and Radiology electronic database along with a review of case notes over a period of six years from 1 st August 2009 to 31 st July 2015 and incorporated into Microsoft excel. Statistical analyses were performed using Med Calc for Windows,version 12.5(Med Calc Software,Ostend,Belgium). Simple statistical applications were applied in order to determine whether significant differences exist in comparison groups. We initially used simple proportions to describe the study populations. Furthermore,we used chi-square test to compare proportions and categorical variables. Non-parametric Mann-Whitney U-test was applied in order to compare continuous variables. All comparisons were deemed to be statistically significant if P values were less than 0.05.RESULTS EPLBD was performed in 229 patients(46 females) with mean age of 68 ± 14.3 years. 115/229(50%) patients had failed duct clearance at previous ERCP referred from elsewhere with standard techniques. Duct clearance at the Index* ERCP(1 st ERCP at our centre) was 72.5%. Final duct clearance rate was 98%. EPLBD after fresh sphincterotomy was performed in 81(35.4%). Median balloon size was 13.5 mm(10-18). In addition to EPLBD,per-oral cholangioscopy(POC) and electrohydraulic lithotripsy(EHL) was performed in 35(15%) patients at index* ERCP. 63(27.5%) required repeat ERCP for stone clearance. 28(44.5%) required POC and EHL and 11(17.4%) had repeat EPLBD for complete duct clearance. Larger stone size(12.4 mm vs 17.4 mm,P < 0.000001),multiple stones(2,range(1-13) vs 3,range(1-12),P < 0.006) and dilated common bile duct(CBD)(12.4 mm vs 18.3 mm,P < 0.001) were significant predictors of failed duct clearance at index ERCP. 47 patients(20%) had ampullary or peri-ampullary diverticula. Procedure related adverse events included 2 cases of bleeding and pancreatitis(0.87%) each.CONCLUSION EPLBD is a safe and effective technique for CBDS removal. There is no difference in outcomes whether it is performed at the time of sphincterotomy or at a later procedure or whether there is a full or limited sphincterotomy.

Endoscopic papillary balloon intermittent dilatation and endoscopic sphincterotomy for bile duct stones

AIM: To compare the effectiveness and safety of endoscopic papillary balloon intermittent dilatation (EPBID) and endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) in the treatment of common bile duct stones. METHODS: From March 2011 to May 2012, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography was performed in 560 patients, 262 with common bile duct stones. A total of 206 patients with common bile duct stones were enrolled in the study and randomized to receive either EPBID with a 10-12 mm dilated balloon or EST (103 patients in each group). For both groups a conventional reticular basket or balloon was used to remove the stones. After the procedure, routine endoscopic nasobiliary drainage was performed. RESULTS: First-time stone removal was successfully performed in 94 patients in the EPBID group (91.3%) and 75 patients in the EST group (72.8%). There was no statistically significant difference in terms of operation time between the two groups. The overall incidence of early complications in the EPBID and EST groups was 2.9% and 13.6%, respectively, with no deaths reported during the course of the study and follow-up. Multiple regression analysis showed that the success rate of stone removal was associated with stone removal method [odds ratio (OR): 5.35; 95%CI: 2.24-12.77; P=0.00], the transverse diameter of the stone (OR: 2.63; 95%CI: 1.19-5.80; P=0.02) and the presence or absence of diverticulum (OR: 2.35; 95%CI: 1.03-5.37; P=0.04). Postoperative pancreatitis was associated with the EST method of stone removal (OR: 5.00; 95%CI: 1.23-20.28; P=0.02) and whether or not pancreatography was performed (OR: 0.10; 95%CI: 0.03-0.35; P=0.00). CONCLUSION: The EPBID group had a higher success rate of stone removal with a lower incidence of pancreatitis compared with the EST group.

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 nae 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 and16.4 ± 3.1 mm, respectively. The mean maximum transverse-diameter of the stones was 13.4 ± 3.4mm, 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 was73.1%(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.

Comparison of endoscopic papillary balloon dilatation and endoscopic sphincterotomy for bile duct stones

Endoscopic treatment for bile duct stones is low-invasive and currently considered as the first choice of the treatment. For the treatment of bile duct stones, papillary treatment is necessary, and the treatments used at the time are broadly classified into two types; endoscopic papillary balloon dilatation where bile duct closing part is dilated with a balloon and endoscopic sphincterotomy(EST) where bile duct closing part is incised. Both procedures have advantages and disadvantages. Golden standard is EST, however, there are patients with difficulty for EST, thus we must select the procedure based on understanding of the characteristics of the procedure, and patient backgrounds.

Predictors of outcomes of endoscopic balloon dilatation in strictures after esophageal atresia repair: A retrospective study

BACKGROUND Endoscopic balloon dilatation (EBD) has become the first line of therapy for benign esophageal strictures (ESs);however,there are few publications about the predictive factors for the outcomes of this treatment.AIM To assess the predictive factors for the outcomes of EBD treatment for strictures after esophageal atresia (EA) repair.METHODS Children with anastomotic ES after thoracoscopic esophageal atresia repair treated by EBD from January 2012 to December 2016 were included.All procedures were performed under tracheal intubation and intravenous anesthesia using a three-grade controlled radial expansion balloon with gastroscopy.Outcomes were recorded and predictors of the outcomes were analyzed.RESULTS A total of 64 patients were included in this analysis.The rates of response,complications,and recurrence were 96.77%,8.06%,and 2.33%,respectively.The number of dilatation sessions and complications were significantly higher in patients with a smaller stricture diameter (P=0.013 and 0.023,respectively) and with more than one stricture (P=0.014 and 0.004,respectively).The length of the stricture was significantly associated with complications of EBD (P=0.001).A longer interval between surgery and the first dilatation was related to more sessions and a poorer response (P=0.017 and 0.024,respectively).CONCLUSION The diameter,length,and number of strictures are the most important predictive factors for the clinical outcomes of endoscopic balloon dilatation in pediatric ES.The interval between surgery and the first EBD is another factor affectingresponse and the number of sessions of dilatation.

Short and long-term outcomes of endoscopic balloon dilatation for Crohn's disease strictures

AIM:To investigate the short and long-term outcomes of endoscopic balloon dilatation(EBD) for Crohn's disease(CD) strictures.METHODS:Between January 1995 and December 2011,47 EBD procedures were performed in 30 patients(8 females and 22 males) with CD.All patients had strictures through which an endoscope could not pass,and symptoms of these strictures included abdominal pain,abdominal fullness,nausea,and/or vomiting.The 47 strictures included 17 anastomotic and 30 de novo strictures.Endoscopy and dilatation were performed under conscious sedation with intravenous diazepam or flunitrazepam.The dilatations were all performed using through-the-scope balloons with diameters from 8 mm to 20 mm on inflation and lengths of 30-80 mm.Each dilatation session consisted of two to four,3-min multistep inflations of the balloon,repeated at intervals of 1 wk until adequate dilatation(up to 15-20 mm in diameter) was achieved.The follow-up data were collected from medical records and analyzed retrospectively.Primary success was defined as passage of the scope through the stricture after EBD.Longterm outcomes were analyzed focusing on interventionfree survival and surgery-free survival demonstrated by the Kaplan-Meier method.(Intervention-free meant cases in which neither endoscopic balloon re-dilatation nor surgery was needed after the first dilatation during the observation period).The log rank test was used to evaluate the difference in long-term outcomes between anastomotic and de novo stricture cases.RESULTS:Primary success was achieved in 44 of the 47 strictures(93.6%).Balloon dilatations failed in 3 cases(6.4%).In 1 case,EBD was a technical failure because the guide-wire could not be passed through the stricture which showed severe adhesion and was a flexural lesion of the intestine.In 2 cases,unexpected perforations occurred immediately after balloon dilatation.Of the 47 treatments,complications occurred in 5(10.6%).All 5 patients had de novo strictures.One suffered bleeding,two high fever and there were colorectal perforations.One of the patients with a colorectal perforation was treated surgically,the other was managed conservatively.These 2 cases correspond to the two aforementioned EBD failures.Long-term outcomes were evaluated for the 44 successfully-treated strictures after a median follow-up of 26 mo(range,2-172 mo).During the observation period,re-strictures after EBDs occurred in 26 cases(60.5%).Fourteen of these 26 re-stricture cases underwent EBD again,but in two EBD failed and surgery was ultimately performed in both cases.Twelve of the 26 re-stricture cases were initially treated surgically when the re-strictures occurred.Finally,30 of the 47 strictures(63.8%) were successfully managed with EBD,allowing surgery to be avoided.Intervention-free survival evaluated by the Kaplan-Meier method was 75% at 12 mo,58% at 24 mo,and 43% at 36 mo.There was no significant difference between the anastomotic strictures(n = 16) and de novo strictures(n = 28) in the intervention-free survival as evaluated by the log-rank test.Surgery-free survival evaluated by the Kaplan-Meier method was 90% at 12 mo,75% at 24 mo,and 53% at 36 mo.The 16 anastomotic strictures were associated with significantly better surgery-free survivals than the 28 de novo strictures(log-rank test:P < 0.05).CONCLUSION:Anastomotic strictures were associated with better long-term outcomes than de novo strictures,indicating that stricture type might be useful for predicting the long-term outcomes of EBD.

Endoscopic balloon catheter dilatation via retrograde or static technique is safe and effective for cricopharyngeal dysfunction

AIM To evaluate the safety and efficacy of upper esophageal sphincter(UES) dilatation for cricopharyngeal(CP) dysfunction. To determine if:(1) indication for dilatation; or(2) technique of dilatation correlated with symptom improvement.METHODS All balloon dilatations performed at our institution from over a 3-year period were retrospectively analyzed for demographics, indication and dilatation site. All dilatations involving the UES underwent further review to determine efficacy, complications, and factors that predict success. Dilatation technique was separated into static(stationary balloon distention) and retrograde(brusque pull-back of a fully distended balloon across the UES).RESULTS Four hundred and eighty-eight dilatations were reviewed. Thirty-one patients were identified who underwent UES dilatation. Median age was 63 years(range 27-81)and 55% of patients were male. Indications included dysphagia(28 patients), globus sensation with evidence of UES dysfunction(2 patients) and obstruction to echocardiography probe with cricopharyngeal(CP)bar(1 patient). There was evidence of concurrent oropharyngeal dysfunction in 16 patients(52%) and a small Zenker's diverticula(≤ 2 cm) in 7 patients(23%). Dilator size ranged from 15 mm to 20 mm. Of the 31 patients, 11 had dilatation of other esophageal segments concurrently with UES dilatation and 20 had UES dilatation alone.Follow-up was available for 24 patients for a median of 2.5 mo(interquartile range 1-10 mo), of whom 19 reported symptomatic improvement(79%). For patients undergoing UES dilatation alone, follow-up was available for 15 patients, 12 of whom reported improvement(80%).Nineteen patients underwent retrograde dilatation(84%response) while 5 patients had static dilatation(60%response); however, there was no significant difference in symptom improvement between the techniques(P = 0.5).Successful symptom resolution was also not significantly affected by dilator size, oropharyngeal dysfunction,Zenker's diverticulum, age or gender(P > 0.05). The only complication noted was uvular edema and a shallow ulcer after static dilatation in one patient, which resolved spontaneously and did not require hospital admission.CONCLUSION UES dilatation with a through-the-scope balloon by either static or retrograde technique is safe and effective for the treatment of dysphagia due to CP dysfunction. To our knowledge, this is the first study evaluating retrograde balloon dilatation of the UES.

Interventional urethral balloon dilatation before endoscopic visual internal urethrotomy for post-traumatic bulbous urethral stricture:A case report

BACKGROUND While several treatment options are available for pediatric urethral strictures,the appropriate treatment must be based on several factors.Although endoscopic visual internal urethrotomy(EVIU)could be a first-line treatment option for short pediatric urethral strictures,it is not feasible if the urethroscope cannot pass through the stricture point.Herein,we present a pediatric case of severe posttraumatic bulbous urethral stricture that was successfully treated by EVIU after securing the urethral route via interventional balloon dilatation.CASE SUMMARY A 12-year-old boy presented at our outpatient clinic with the inability to urinate.He had sustained a straddle injury three months prior.The post-void residual urine volume was 644 mL,and retrograde urethrography confirmed severe stricture of the bulbous urethra.EVIU was planned;however,the first attempt to treat the stricture failed because the urethroscope could not pass through the stricture point.The urethral route was subsequently secured via balloon dilatation of the stricture,which was performed in collaboration with specialists from the department of interventional radiology.The urethroscope was then able to pass,and the repeat EVIU was successful.CONCLUSION Interventional urethral balloon dilatation before EVIU may help secure the urethral route in the treatment of pediatric urethral strictures.

Endoscopic treatment of extreme esophageal stenosis complicated with esophagotracheal fistula: A case report

BACKGROUND At present,there is no unified and effective treatment for extreme corrosive esophageal stenosis(CES)with esophagotracheal fistula(ETF).This case had extreme and severe esophageal stenosis(ES)and ETF after ingesting an enzyme-based chemical detergent,resulting in a serious pulmonary infection and severe malnutrition.Upper gastrointestinal imaging showed that he had an ETF,and endoscopy showed that he had extreme and severe esophageal stricture.This case was complex and difficult to treat.According to the domestic and foreign lite-rature,there is no universal treatment that is low-risk.CASE SUMMARY A patient came to our hospital with extreme ES,an ETF,and severe malnutrition complicated with pulmonary tuberculosis 1 mo after the consumption of an enzy-me-based detergent.The ES was serious,and the endoscope was unable to pass through the esophagus.We treated him by endoscopic incision method(EIM),esophageal stent placement(ESP),and endoscopic balloon dilation(EBD)by using the bronchoscope and gastroscope.This treatment not only closed the ETF,but also expanded the esophagus,with minimal trauma,greatly reducing the pain of the patient.According to the literature,there are no similar reported cases.CONCLUSION We report,for the first time,a patient with extreme CES complicated with ETF,where the endoscope could not be passed through his esophagus but he could be examined by bronchoscopy and treated by EIM,ESP,and EBD.

Endoscopic sphincterotomy plus large-balloon dilation vs endoscopic sphincterotomy for choledocholithiasis:A meta-analysis

AIM:To perform a meta-analysis of large-balloon dilation(LBD)plus endoscopic sphincterotomy(EST)vs EST alone for removal of bile duct stones.METHODS:Databases including PubMed,EMBASE,the Cochrane Library,the Science Citation Index,and important meeting abstracts were searched and evaluated by two reviewers independently.The main outcome measures included:complete stone removal,stone removal in the first session,use of mechanical lithotripsy,procedure time,and procedure-related complications.A fixed-effects model weighted by the Mantel-Haenszel method was used for pooling the odds ratio(OR)when heterogeneity was not significant among the studies.When a Q test or I2statistic indicated substantial heterogeneity,a random-effects model weighted by the DerSimonian-Laird method was used.RESULTS:Six randomized controlled trials involving835 patients were analyzed.There was no significant heterogeneity for most results;we analyzed these using a fixed-effects model.Meta-analysis showed EST plus LBD caused fewer overall complications than EST alone(OR=0.53,95%CI:0.33-0.85,P=0.008);sub-category analysis indicated a significantly lower risk of perforation in the EST plus LBD group(Peto OR=0.14,95%CI:0.20-0.98,P=0.05).Use of mechanical lithotripsy in the EST plus LBD group decreased significantly(OR=0.26,95%CI:0.08-0.82,P=0.02),especially in patients with a stone size larger than 15 mm(OR=0.15,95%CI:0.03-0.68,P=0.01).There were no significant differences between the two groups regarding complete stone removal,stone removal in the first session,post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis,bleeding,infection of biliary tract,and procedure time.CONCLUSION:EST plus LBD is an effective approach for the removal of large bile duct stones,causing fewer complications than EST alone.

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 2006to 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±10.9years,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 nonPAD 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.

Endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation vs endoscopic sphincterotomy for retrieval of common bile duct stones:A meta-analysis

AIM:To compare the efficacy and safety of endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation(EPLBD)with endoscopic sphincterotomy(EST)in retrieval of common bile duct stones(≥10 mm).METHODS:PubMed,Web of Knowledge,EBSCO,the Cochrane Library,and EMBASE were searched for eligible studies.Randomized controlled trials(RCTs)that compared EPLBD with EST were identified.Data extraction and quality assessment were performed by two independent reviewers using the same criteria.Any disagreement was discussed with a third reviewer until a final consensus was reached.Pooled outcomes of complete bile duct stone clearance,stone clearance in one session,requirement for mechanical lithotripsy,and overall complication rate were determined using relative risk and 95%CI.The separate post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography complications were pooled and determined with the Peto odds ratio and95%CI because of the small number of events.Heterogeneity was evaluated with the chi-squared test with P≤0.1 and I2 with a cutoff of≥50%.A fixed effects model was used primarily.A random effects model was applied when significant heterogeneity was detected.Sensitivity analysis was applied to explore the potential bias.RESULTS:Five randomized controlled trials with 621participants were included.EPLBD compared with EST had similar outcomes with regard to complete stone removal rate(93.7%vs 92.5%,P=0.54)and complete duct clearance in one session(82.2%vs 77.7%,P=0.17).Mechanical lithotripsy was performed less in EPLBD in the retrieval of whole stones(15.5%vs25.2%,P=0.003),as well as in the stratified subgroup of stones larger than 15 mm(24.2%vs 40%,P=0.001).There was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of overall adverse events(7.9%vs 10.7%,P=0.25),post-ERCP pancreatitis(4.0%vs 5.0%,P=0.54),hemorrhage(1.7%vs 2.8%,P=0.32),perforation(0.3%vs 0.9%,P=0.35)or acute cholangitis(1.3%vs 1.3%,P=0.92).CONCLUSION:EPLBD could be advocated as an alternative to EST in the retrieval of large common bile duct stones.

Reappraisal of endoscopic papillary balloon dilation for the management of common bile duct stones

Although endoscopic sphincterotomy(EST) is still considered as a gold standard treatment for common bile duct(CBD) stones in western guideline, endoscopic papillary balloon dilation(EPBD) is commonly used by the endoscopists in Asia as the first-line treatment for CBD stones. Besides the advantages of a technical easy procedure, endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation(EPLBD) can facilitate the removal of large CBD stones.The indication of EPBD is now extended from removal of the small stones by using traditional balloon, to removal of large stones and avoidance of lithotripsy by using large balloon alone or after EST. According to the reports of antegrade papillary balloon dilatation, balloon dilation itself is not the cause of pancreatitis. On the contrary, adequate dilation of papillary orifice can reduce the trauma to the papilla and pancreas by the basket or lithotripter during the procedure of stone extraction. EPLBD alone is as effective as EPLBD with limited EST. Longer ballooning time may be beneficial in EPLBD alone to achieve adequate loosening of papillary orifice. The longer ballooning time does not increase the risk of pancreatitis but may reduce the bleeding episodes in patients with coagulopathy. Slowly inflation of the balloon, but not exceed the diameter of bile duct and tolerance of the patients are important to prevent the complication of perforation. EPBLD alone or with EST are not the sphincter preserved procedures, regular follow up is necessary for early detection and management of CBD stones recurrence.

Limited endoscopic sphincterotomy plus large balloon dilation for choledocholithiasis with periampullary diverticula

AIM: To investigate the effectiveness and safety of limited endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) plus large balloon dilation (LBD) for removing choledocholithiasis in patients with periampullary diverticula (PAD). METHODS: A total of 139 patients with common bile duct (CBD) stones were treated with LBD (10-20 mm balloon diameter) after limited EST. Of this total, 73 patients had PAD and 66 patients did not have PAD (controls). The results of stone removal and complications were retrospectively evaluated. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between the PAD and the control groups in overall successful stone removal (94.5% vs 93.9%), stone removal in first session (69.9% vs 81.8%), mechanical lithotripsy (12.3% vs 13.6%), and complications (11.0% vs 7.6%). Clinical outcomes were also similar between the types of PAD, but the rate of stone removal in first session and the number of sessions were significantly lower and more frequent, respectively, in type B PAD (papilla located near the diverticulum) than controls [23/38 (60.5%) vs 54/66 (81.8%), P = 0.021; and 1 (1-2) vs 1 (1-3), P = 0.037, respectively] and the frequency of pancreatitis was significantly higher in type A PAD (papilla located inside or in the margin of the diverticulum) than in controls (16.1% vs 3.0%, P = 0.047). CONCLUSION: Limited EST plus LBD was an effective and safe procedure for removing choledocholithiasis in patients with PAD. However, some types of PAD should be managed with caution.

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 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 2003and June 2013,where it was performed with largediameter 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 of413 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 and97.2%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 large balloon dilation after limited sphincterotomy for difficult biliary stones

AIM:To assess the efficacy and safety of endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation after biliary sphincterotomy for difficult bile duct stones retrieval.METHODS:Retrospective review of consecutive patients submitted to the technique during 18 mo.The main outcomes considered were:efficacy of the procedure(complete stone clearance;number of sessions;need of lithotripsy) and complications.RESULTS:A total of 30 patients with a mean age of 68 ± 10 years,23 female(77%) and 7 male(23%) were enrolled.In 10 patients,a single stone was found in the common bile duct(33%) and in 20 patients multiple stones(67%) were found.The median diameter of the stones was 17 mm(12-30 mm).Dilations were performed with progressive diameter Through-TheScope balloons(up to 12,15) or 18 mm.Complete retrieval of stones was achieved in a single session in 25 patients(84%) and in two sessions in 4 patients(13%).Failure occurred in 1 case(6%).Mechanical lithotripsywas performed in 6 cases(20%).No severe complications occurred.One patient(3%) had mild-grade post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography(ERCP) pancreatitis.CONCLUSION:Endoscopic balloon dilatation with a large balloon after endoscopic sphincterotomy is a safe and effective technique that could be considered an alternative choice in therapeutic ERCP.