Comparison of endoscopic papillary large‐balloon dilatation with endoscopic sphincterotomy in clearing large common bile duct stones: A systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials

Abstract

AbstractThere are three methods to retrieve large common bile duct stones, the first is endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST), the second is endoscopic papillary large‐balloon dilatation (EPLBD), and the third is limited EST plus EPLBD. Although EST is the most popularly used method, it has higher risk of bleeding complication and basket stuck. EPLBD alone without EST demonstrated safe and quick in the clinical practice, but there were only few studies focused on comparing EST or EPLBD alone. Thus, this study aims to compare the efficacy and safety of EPLBD with EST. We searched for PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases to collect relevant articles until August 31st, 2019. We included randomized controlled trials, common bile duct stones > 10 mm, comparison of endoscopic papillary large‐balloon dilatation with endoscopic sphincterotomy, and patients older than 18. We compare endoscopic papillary large‐balloon dilatation with endoscopic sphincterotomy on the clearance of large common bile duct stones, the adverse events, and the need for mechanical lithotripsy. This systematic review and meta‐analysis was registered on PROSPERO and the registration number is CRD42020150485. Total six studies met inclusion criteria and 762 participants were enrolled. The data revealed that endoscopic papillary large‐balloon dilatation alone was comparable to endoscopic sphincterotomy on the clearance of large common bile duct stones (RR = 1.02, 95% CI: 0.93‐1.12), the adverse events (RR = 1.01, 95% CI: 0.71‐1.43) and the need for mechanical lithotripsy. In the subgroup analysis, the requirement of mechanical lithotripsy decreased in the non‐Chinese group (RR = 0.58, 95% CI: 0.41‐0.84). The efficacy and safety to clean large common bile duct stones are comparable in either EPLBD or EST. In addition, EPLBD alone not only saves the operation time but also reduces the chance of mechanical lithotripsy in the subgroup analysis.