Endoscopic sphincterotomy plus balloon dilation versus endoscopic sphincterotomy for choledocholithiasis: A meta‐analysis

Abstract

Endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) alone and EST combined with balloon dilation (ESBD) are important endoscopic techniques for stone extraction. We were to conduct a meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of ESBD and EST. Meta-analysis was performed respectively on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and nonrandomized studies comparing the efficacy and safety of ESBD and EST. The results of three RCTs showed that stone removal in first session (relative risk [RR] 1.01, 0.92-1.11, P=0.85) and the utility of endoscopic mechanical lithotripsy (EML) (RR 0.78, 0.49-1.23, P=0.29) were equivalent between ESBD and EST. ESBD has equivalent complications (RR 0.61, 0.17-2.25, P=0.46) and post-ERCP pancreatitis (Peto odds ratio [OR] 1.11, 0.37-3.35, P=0.86), but less bleeding (Peto OR 0.10, 0.03-0.30, P<0.0001). The analysis of six retrospective studies suggested higher initial success in stone removal (RR 1.11, 1.02-1.20, P=0.01) and less EML (RR 0.32, 0.22-0.46, P<0.00001) in ESBD group. Less complications (RR 0.60, 0.44-0.83, P=0.02) happened in ESBD group, but equivalent post-ERCP pancreatitis (Peto OR 0.65, 0.37-1.15, P=0.14) and bleeding (Peto OR 0.60, 0.29-1.26, P=0.18). For patients with stones ≥ 15 mm, ESBD required less EML (RR 0.35, 0.24-0.51, P<0.00001) and caused fewer complications (RR 0.67, 0.38-0.92, P=0.02). ESBD is feasible for the treatment of choledocholithiasis without increased risk of complications, causing less bleeding. However, it warrants more clinical trials to compare the efficacy and safety of ESBD and EST.