Endoscopic Sphincterotomy Group Research Articles

Clinical efficacy of laparoscopic cholecystectomy combined with endoscopic papillary balloon dilation in treatment of gallbladder stones with common bile duct stones: A retrospective study.

The incidence of cholelithiasis has been on the rise in recent years, but the choice of procedure is controversial. To investigate the efficacy of laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) combined with endoscopic papillary balloon dilation (EPBD) in patients with gallbladder stones (GS) with common bile duct stones (CBDS). The clinical data of 102 patients with GS combined with CBDS were selected for retrospective analysis and divided into either an LC + EPBD group (n = 50) or an LC + endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) group (n = 52) according to surgical methods. Surgery-related indexes, postoperative recovery, postoperative complications, and expression levels of inflammatory response indexes were compared between the two groups. Total surgical time, stone free rate, rate of conversion to laparotomy, and successful stone extraction rate did not differ significantly between the LC + EPBD group and LC + EST group. Intraoperative hemorrhage, time to ambulation, and length of hospitalization in the LC + EPBD group were lower than those of the LC + EST group (P < 0.05). The rate of total complications of the two groups was 9.80% and 17.65%, respectively, and the difference was not statistically significant. No serious complications occurred in either group. At 48 h postoperatively, the expression levels of interleukin-6, tumor necrosis factor-α, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, and procalcitonin were lower in the LC + EPBD group than in the LC + EST group (P < 0.05). At 3 d postoperatively, the expression levels of aspartate transaminase, alanine transaminase, and total bilirubin were lower in the LC + EPBD group than in the LC + EST group (P < 0.05). LC combined with EPBD and LC combined with EST are both effective procedures for the treatment of GS with CBDS, in which LC combined with EPBD is beneficial to shorten the patient's hospitalization time, reduce the magnitude of elevated inflammatory response indexes, and promote postoperative recovery.

The Clinical Presentations of Liver Abscess Development After Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography with Choledocholithiasis: A 17-Year Follow-Up.

Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), used for choledocholithiasis treatment, carries a risk of pyogenic liver abscess (PLA) due to communication between the biliary system and bowel contents. However, limited data exists on this issue. This study aims to identify the risk factors pertaining to liver abscesses following ERCP lithotomy. We conducted a retrospective case series across multiple centers to evaluate patients who developed PLA after ERCP for choledocholithiasis. Data was obtained from the Chung Gung Research Database (January 2001 to December 2018). Out of 220 enrolled patients, 195 were categorized in the endoscopic sphincterotomy (ES) group, while 25 were in the non-ES group for further analysis. The non-ES group had significantly higher total bilirubin levels compared to the ES group (4.3 ± 5.8 vs 1.9 ± 2.0, p<0.001). Abscess size, location, and distribution (single or multiple) were similar between the two groups. The most common pathogens were Klebsiella pneumoniae and Escherichia coli. Pseudomonas infection was significantly less prevalent in the ES group compared to the non-ES group (3.6% vs 16.7%, p=0.007). Patients with concurrent malignancies (HR: 9.529, 95% CI: 2.667-34.048, p=0.001), elevated total bilirubin levels (HR: 1.246, 95% CI: 1.062-1.461, p=0.007), multiple abscess lesions (HR: 5.146, 95% CI: 1.777-14.903, p=0.003), and growth of enterococcus pathogens (HR: 4.518, 95% CI: 1.290-15.823, p=0.001) faced a significantly higher risk of in-hospital mortality. PLA incidence was higher in the ES group compared to the non-ES group following ERCP for choledocholithiasis. Attention should be given to significant risk factors, including concurrent malignancies, elevated total bilirubin levels, multiple abscess lesions, and growth of enterococcus pathogens, to reduce in-hospital mortality.

Efficacy and safety of endoscopic sphincterotomy with balloon dilation versus endoscopic sphincterotomy alone for extraction of common bile duct stones with a maximum diameter of 10 to15 millimeters.

Various factors, most notably the stone's features, determine the selection of an appropriate methodto extract common bile duct (CBD) stones during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. In this study, the efficacy and safety of endoscopic sphincterotomy with balloon dilation (ESBD) versus endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) for CBD stone extraction with a diameter of 10 to 15 millimeters were compared. This retrospective cross-sectional study included 154 patients referred to the Rouhani Hospital in Babol, Iran, with CBD stones. Consensus sampling was used. Each individual's demographic information and findings from the procedure were entered into the SPSS software (v. 26). A level of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant. A total of 154 patients were included in the study, of which 81 (52.6%) were in the EST, and 73 (47.4%) were in the ESBD group. Complete stones removal rate was higher in the ESBD versus the EST group (79.5% versus 46.9%, P<0.001). No significant differences were observed between the two methods' overall side effects rate (P = 0.469). For the complete extraction of CBD stones larger than 10 millimeters, the ESBD method outperforms the EST method.

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.

Analysis of Clinical Effects of Intubation and Sphincterotomy With Wire-guided Incision Knife Plus Balloon Dilatation in the Treatment of Choledocholithiasis: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

To investigate the clinical effects of intubation and sphincterotomy with wire-guided incision knife plus balloon dilatation (ISBD) in the treatment of choledocholithiasis, a randomized controlled trial was conducted. A total of 270 patients with choledocholithiasis confirmed by computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging from January 2016 to July 2018 in our hospital were enrolled in the research. All patients were randomly divided into 3 groups: ISBD group, endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) group, and endoscopic sphincterotomy plus balloon dilation group, respectively. The clinical effects, complications, and inflammation indexes of the 3 groups were detected. SPSS software was used for statistics and analysis of results. There were no significant differences in basic characteristics of the 3 groups. Although there was no significant difference in the total stone clearance rate among the 3 groups, the first stone clearance rate and the large stone clearance rate in ISBD group were significantly higher than those in EST group. Compared with the other 2 groups, the total operation time and complications in ISBD group were significant lower. The serum levels of interleukin-6, C-reactive protein (CRP), procalcitonin (PCT), carbohydrate antigen 19-9, and carcinoembryonic antigen in ISBD group were significant lower than those in EST group, and CRP and PCT in ISBD group were markedly lower than those in endoscopic sphincterotomy plus balloon dilation group. ISBD treatment simplifies the operation procedure, shortens the operation time, reduces postoperative inflammation and complications, and makes ERCP stone removal simpler, safer, and more efficient for patients with common bile duct stones.

Comparison of Different Endoscopic Methods Used for Managing Choledocholithiasis in Patients with End-Stage Renal Disease Undergoing Hemodialysis.

Endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST), endoscopic papillary balloon dilation (EPBD), and endoscopic sphincterotomy plus balloon dilation (ESBD) are all techniques used to manage choledocholithiasis. We aim to analyze the efficacy and safety of these techniques for treating choledocholithiasis in patients undergoing hemodialysis (HD). We performed a retrospective study of 80 patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) on HD who underwent endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) for choledocholithiasis management between August 1st, 2012, and December 31st, 2020, at a medical center in southern Taiwan. These patients were divided into three groups: EST (n = 21), EPBD (n = 28), and ESBD (n = 31). Post-ERCP complications, including pancreatitis, bleeding, cholangitis, and perforation, were reviewed for analysis. There were no significant among-group differences in the rate of complete stone clearance and hospitalization day after ERCP. Patients in the EST group had a higher post-ERCP complication rate than was the case in the other groups (p = 0.016). ESBD significantly reduced post-ERCP bleeding, compared with that occurring with EST (OR 0.07; 95% CI, 0.01-0.72, p = 0.026). There were no significant among-group differences in the rates of pancreatitis and cholangitis. There were no ERCP-related perforations or deaths in this study. EST, EPBD, and ESBD are efficient methods for treating choledocholithiasis in ESRD patients. ESBD was found to lead to a lower risk of bleeding than EST, and the rate of pancreatitis or cholangitis was comparable for EST and EPBD. Our results suggest that ESBD is the best choice of treatment of choledocholithiasis in patients with ESRD undergoing HD.

Risk of Pancreatitis Following Biliary Stenting With/Without Endoscopic Sphincterotomy: A Randomized Controlled Trial

The efficacy of endoscopic sphincterotomy (ES) before endoscopic transpapillary biliary drainage in preventing post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis (PEP) has not been established. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of performing ES before biliary stent/tube placement on the occurrence of PEP. Three hundred seventy patients with biliary stricture requiring endoscopic biliary stenting were enrolled and randomly allocated to the ES group (n= 185) or non-ES group (n= 185). All participants were followed up for 30 days after the procedure. The data and occurrence of adverse events were prospectively collected. The primary outcome measure of this study was the incidence of PEP within 2 days of initial transpapillary biliary drainage. Secondary outcome measures were the incidence of other adverse events related to biliary stent/tube placement. PEP occurred in 36 patients (20.6%) in the non-ES group and in 7 patients (3.9%) in the ES group (P < .001). The difference in the incidence of PEP between the 2 groups in the per-protocol population was 16.7% (95% confidence interval, 10.1%-23.3%), which was not within the noninferiority margin of 6%. Except for bleeding, the incidences of other adverse events were not significantly different between the groups. ES before endoscopic biliary stenting could have the preventive effect on the occurrence of PEP in patients with biliary stricture. University Hospital Medical Information Network Number, UMIN000025727.University Hospital Medical Information Network Clinical Trial Registry URL: https://www.umin.ac.jp/ctr/index.htm.

Multicenter randomized trial of endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation without sphincterotomy versus endoscopic sphincterotomy for removal of bile duct stones: MARVELOUS trial.

BACKGROUND : Endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation (EPLBD) has been increasingly used for the management of large common bile duct (CBD) stones. Although EPLBD is often preceded by endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST), EPLBD alone without EST has been increasingly reported as an alternative to EST for large CBD stones. METHODS : This multicenter randomized trial was conducted at 19 Japanese institutions to compare the efficacy and safety of EPLBD alone versus EST for the removal of large (≥ 10 mm) CBD stones. The primary end point was complete stone removal in a single session. The secondary end points included: overall complete stone removal, lithotripsy use, procedure time, adverse events, and cost. RESULTS: 171 patients with large CBD stones were included in the analysis. The rate of single-session complete stone removal was significantly higher in the EPLBD-alone group than in the EST group (90.7 % vs. 78.8 %; P = 0.04). Lithotripsy use was significantly less frequent in the EPLBD group than in the EST group (30.2 % vs. 48.2 %; P = 0.02). The rates of early adverse events were comparable between the two groups: rates of overall adverse events were 9.3 % vs. 9.4 % and of pancreatitis were 4.7 % vs. 5.9 % in the EPLBD and EST groups, respectively. The procedure costs were $1442 vs. $1661 in the EPLBD and EST groups, respectively (P = 0.12). CONCLUSION : EPLBD without EST for the endoscopic treatment of large CBD stones achieved a significantly higher rate of complete stone removal in a single session compared with EST, without increasing adverse events.

Endoscopic sphincterotomy to prevent post-ERCP pancreatitis in patients with biliary neoplasms: a multicenter retrospective cohort study.

Background and aims Treatment of biliary neoplasms often involves multiple endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP)-related procedures. Endoscopic sphincterotomy (ES) may prevent post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP). This retrospective, multicenter cohort study aimed to investigate the effectiveness of ES for prevention of PEP in patients with biliary neoplasm. Methods Patients with biliary duct neoplasm who underwent ERCP between January 2006 and December 2016 were enrolled. The frequency of PEP was compared between the ES and non-ES groups using propensity score analysis. The effectiveness of ES in subgroups of patients who underwent biliary duct stent placement, intraductal ultrasound (IDUS), and transpapillary biliary duct biopsy was analyzed by logistic regression. Results Of the 362 patients enrolled, 84 (23.2 %) developed PEP. Propensity score matching for PEP risk factors in 172 ERCP procedures showed that the frequency of PEP in the ES group was lower than that in the non-ES group (19.7 % vs. 33.7 %). Non-ES was also an independent risk factor for PEP in patients who underwent intraductal ultrasound and transpapillary biliary duct biopsy (RR = 4.54 and 5.26), but was not an independent risk factor for PEP in patients with biliary duct stents. In addition, there was no evidence that the frequency of PEP was statistically different between patients with plastic stents and metal stents in the ES and non-ES groups ( P = 0.14 and 0.10). Conclusions ES is an effective technique to prevent PEP in patients with biliary neoplasms. In particular, ES is a safe technique to prevent PEP when performing IDUS and transpapillary biliary duct biopsy.

Evaluation of the safety and efficacy of minimal endoscopic sphincterotomy followed by papillary balloon dilation for the removal of common bile duct stones.

Background/Aim:A sufficiently open papilla is needed to remove common bile duct stones (CBDS) but endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) requires a high level of skill and is difficult with endoscopic papillary balloon dilation (EPBD). The main adverse event of EST is bleeding and perforation and that of EPBD is post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis. To reduce these adverse events we employed minimal EST followed by papillary dilation (ESBD), and retrospectively evaluated its efficacy and safety compared with EST.Patients and Methods:CBDS patients who underwent EST (n = 114) or ESBD (n = 321) at Juntendo University Hospital from January 2009 to December 2018 were consecutively enrolled, retrospectively. The exclusion criteria were large-balloon dilation (≥ 12 mm), large CBDS (>12 mm), and previous EST/EPBD. We compared the overall stone removal rate, incidence of adverse event, procedure time, number of ERCP procedures, and rate of mechanical lithotripsy (ML) between the two groups.Results:Complete stone removal was successful in both ESBD and EST group. However, the rate of multiple ERCP sessions was significantly lower (35.1% vs. 12.8%, P < 0.001), procedure time was shorter (31.6 vs. 25.8 min, P = 0.01), and rate of ML was lower (16.7% vs. 7.8%, P = 0.01) in ESBD group. Bleeding was significantly more frequent in the EST group (9.6% vs. 1.2%, P < 0.001), particularly acute bleeding (7.9% vs. 0.9%, P < 0.001).Conclusions:ESBD is more efficient and safer in the management of CBD stones than EST. A prospective randomized study comparing ESBD with EST is needed to establish this combination technique.

Long-Term Prognosis of Cholecystocholedocholithiasis in Chinese Population

Introduction: Choledocholithiasis is usually treated with endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST), laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (CBDE) (LCBDE), or laparoscopic transcystic CBDE (LTCBDE). However, the comparative long-term prognosis of these methods in terms of adverse outcomes remains uncertain. Methods: In an ambispective, multicenter, observational, open cohort study, patients with cholecystocholedocholithiasis underwent one of three treatments (EST+laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC), LCBDE+LC, and LTCBDE+LC).The primary outcome was adverse outcomes. Results: At a median follow-up period of 2.72 years among 2708 patients, the adverse outcome rate is 9.3%. Compared with LCBDE and LTCBDE groups, EST group displayed an increased risk for adverse outcomes (HR 1.25, 95% CI 0.93-1.69, P=0.146; HR 1.77, 95% CI 1.30-2.43, P<0.001) and stone-related outcomes (HR 1.43, 95% CI 0.99-2.06, P=0.054; HR 4.36, 95% CI 2.71-7.02, P<0.001) in the unadjusted Cox model. After adjustment in the multivariable analysis, EST group still displayed an increased risk of adverse outcomes (HR 1.43, 95% CI 1.05-1.95, P=0.021; HR 1.87, 95% CI 1.35-2.59, P<0.001) and stone-related outcomes (HR 1.64, 95% CI 1.13-2.37, P=0.010; HR 4.88, 95% CI 2.99-7.97, P<0.001). Compared with LTCBDE group, LCBDE group displayed an increased risk for a stone-related outcome in both the unadjusted Cox model (HR 3.05, 95% CI 1.89-4.90, P<0.001) and the adjusted multivariable analysis (HR 2.98, 95% CI 1.83-4.86, P <0.001). Conclusion: Compared with EST, the laparoscopic technique was associated with a lower risk of adverse outcomes and stone-related outcomes after adjustment for confounding factors. In laparoscopic techniques, the risk of stone-related outcomes after LTCBDE is reduced 66.4% than LCBDE. Clinical Trial Registration: CREST Choles ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02554097. Funding Statement: The author(s) disclose receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: this program is sponsored by Capital Health Research and Special Development (No. 2016-1-1111), National Key Technologies R&D Program (No. 2015BAI13B09), and Beijing Municipal Administration of Hospitals Incubator Program (No. PX2016001 and No. PX2019004). Declaration of Interests: The author(s) declare no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. Ethics Approval Statement: Ethical approval was obtained at all participating centers.

The efficacy of limited endoscopic sphincterotomy plus endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation for removal of large bile duct stones

BackgroundThe removal of large bile duct stones (> 15 mm) by conventional endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) and endoscopic papillary balloon dilation (EPBD) can be challenging, requiring mechanical lithotripsy (ML) in addition to EST or EPBD. The primary complication of ML is basket and stone impaction, which can lead to complications such as pancreatitis and cholangitis. The present study aims to investigate the efficacy of limited EST plus endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation (EST-EPLBD) for large bile duct stone extraction with an extent of cutting < 1/2 the length of the papillary mound.MethodsWe enrolled 185 patients with ≥15 mm bile duct stones who received EST, EPLBD and limited EST-EPLBD treatment from January 1, 2010 to February 28, 2018, at Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital (Kaohsiung, Taiwan). All patients were categorized into three groups: EST group (n = 31), EPLBD group (n = 96), and limited EST-EPLBD group (n = 58). The primary outcome variables were the success rate of complete stone removal and complications.ResultsThe limited EST-EPLBD group exhibited a higher success rate of the first-session treatment compared with the EST and EPLBD groups (98.3% vs. 83.9% vs. 86.5%; P = 0.032) but required a longer procedure time (32 (12–61) min vs. 23.5 (17–68) min vs. 25.0 (14–60) min; P = 0.001). The need for ML during the procedure was 4 (12.9%) in the EST group, 10 (10.4%) in the EPLBD group and 2 (3.4%) in the limited EST-EPLBD group. Post-procedure bleeding in the EST group was more common than that in the limited EST-EPLBD group (9.7% vs. 0%; P = 0.038). Furthermore, dilated bile duct was the only risk factor for bile duct stone recurrence in the limited EST-EPLBD group.ConclusionsLimited EST-EPLBD exhibits a higher success rate but requires marginally longer procedure time for the first-session treatment. Furthermore, dilated bile duct is the only risk factor for bile duct stone recurrence in patients undergoing limited EST-EPLBD.

Sphincterotomy plus balloon dilation versus sphincterotomy alone for choledocholithiasis: a meta-analysis.

Endoscopic sphincterotomy plus balloon dilation (ESBD) is considered to be a promising method for the removal of large common bile duct (CBD) stones. However, when compared with endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) alone, the efficacy and safety of ESBD remain controversial. This meta-analysis aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of ESBD vs. EST for the removal of large CBD stones. Electronic databases were searched up to 15 July 2018 for literature that compared ESBD with EST for the removal of CBD stones. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) of the stone clearance rate and the complication rate were used to compare the efficacy and safety of ESBD vs. EST. A total of 18 studies with 2789 patients were included. The results showed that the stone removal rate was much higher in the ESBD group than in the EST group, both across all endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) sessions (OR 2.68, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 1.79 to 4.01) and during the first ERCP session (OR 2.07, 95 %CI 1.37 to 3.12). The ESBD group had fewer complications than EST alone (OR 0.63, 95 %CI 0.47 to 0.85). Moreover, the ESBD group needed less mechanical lithotripsy (OR 0.38, 95 %CI 0.24 to 0.61) and had a shorter procedure time (mean difference - 4.05, 95 %CI - 7.02 to - 1.09) than EST alone. The efficacy and safety of ESBD were superior to those of EST for the removal of large CBD stones. Moreover, less mechanical lithotripsy and shorter procedure times were needed with ESBD to manage large stones.

Endoscopic Sphincterotomy before Fully Covered Metal Stent Placement Is Not Required for Distal Malignant Biliary Stricture due to a Pancreatic Head Tumor.

Background/Aims Endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) is often performed before fully covered self-expandable metal stent (FCSEMS) placement in order to prevent pancreatitis. However, it is not clear whether EST prevents pancreatitis or affects other adverse events (AEs). This study is conducted to evaluate the necessity of EST before FCSEMS placement for distal malignant biliary strictures due to a pancreatic head tumor. Methods This study included 68 patients who underwent FCSEMS placement for distal malignant biliary stricture due to a pancreatic head tumor. Treatment outcomes and AEs were retrospectively compared between 32 patients with EST before FCSEMS placement (EST group) and 36 patients without EST (non-EST group). Results The success rates of drainage for the EST and non-EST groups were 100% and 97.2%, respectively (P = 0.95). The incidence of pancreatitis in the EST and non-EST groups was 3.1% and 0%, respectively (P = 0.95). The incidence of hyperamylasemia in the EST and non-EST groups was 12.5% and 13.9%, respectively (P = 0.85). The incidence of all AEs in the EST and non-EST groups was 15.6% (pancreatitis: 1, cholecystitis: 2, and stent migration: 2) and 13.9% (cholecystitis: 3, stent migration: 2), respectively (P = 0.89). Conclusions EST before FCSEMS placement for distal malignant biliary stricture due to a pancreatic head tumor does not affect the successful drainage and incidence of adverse events. The necessity of EST to prevent pancreatitis before FCSEMS placement was deemed low.

Clinical course of biliary-type sphincter of Oddi dysfunction: endoscopic sphincterotomy and functional dyspepsia as affecting factors.

Background and study aims:The objective of this study was to clarify the effectiveness of treatment selection for biliary-type sphincter of Oddi dysfunction by severe pain frequency and the risk factors for recurrence including the history of functional gastrointestinal disorder.Patients and methods:Thirty-six sphincter of Oddi dysfunction patients who were confirmed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography enrolled in this study. Endoscopic sphincterotomy was performed for type I and manometry-confirmed type II sphincter of Oddi dysfunction patients with severe pain (⩾2 times/year; endoscopic sphincterotomy group). Others were treated medically (non-endoscopic sphincterotomy group).Results:The short-term effectiveness rate of endoscopic sphincterotomy was 91%. The final remission rates of the endoscopic sphincterotomy and non-endoscopic sphincterotomy groups were 86% and 100%, respectively. Symptoms relapsed after endoscopic sphincterotomy in 32% of patients. Patients in the endoscopic sphincterotomy and non-endoscopic sphincterotomy groups had or developed functional dyspepsia in 41% and 14%, irritable bowel syndrome in 5% and 14%, and gastroesophageal reflux disorder in 14% and 0%, respectively. History or new onset of functional dyspepsia was related to recurrence on multivariate analysis. The frequency of occurrence of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis and post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography cholangitis was high in both groups. Two new occurrences of bile duct stone cases were observed in each group.Conclusion:According to the treatment criteria, endoscopic and medical treatment for biliary-type sphincter of Oddi dysfunction has high effectiveness, but recurrences are common. Recurrences may be related to new onset or a history of functional dyspepsia.

The impact of empiric endoscopic biliary sphincterotomy on future gallstone-related complications in patients with non-severe acute biliary pancreatitis whose cholecystectomy was deferred or not performed.

Early cholecystectomy (EC) is recommended in patients with acute biliary pancreatitis (ABP). In real-life practice, cholecystectomy is frequently deferred due to various reasons and delayed cholecystectomy (DC) is performed instead. Endoscopic sphincterotomy (ES) is an alternative to prevent recurrent pancreatitis, however other gallstone-related complications (GCs) may still develop. We aimed to determine the impact of ES on future GCs in patients with non-severe acute biliary pancreatitis whose cholecystectomy was deferred or not performed. During 2006-2016, we included patients with non-severe ABP while those with severe pancreatitis and concurrent cholangitis were excluded. GC events were compared between those who had DC with ES and those who had DC without ES. A similar comparison was made in patients with and without ES who did not receive cholecystectomy. Of 266 patients with ABP, non-severe ABP was identified in 146. Only 16 (11%) had EC. Of patients with non-severe ABP who underwent DC (n = 88), recurrent ABP in the ES group was lower than those from the non-ES group (2% vs. 17%; p = 0.01). Acute cholecystitis was found in 0%, 6% and 10% of patients with EC, DC and those without cholecystectomy (p = 0.39). Of those who did not undergo cholecystectomy (n = 42), recurrent ABP in the ES group was still lower than the non-ES group (4% vs. 36%; p = 0.006). ES related complications were mild pancreatitis (4%) and post sphincterotomy bleeding (5%). In patient with non-severe ABP, ES is an alternative to reduce recurrent ABP, however without EC, future cholecystitis may still develop.

Endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation and endoscopic papillary balloon dilation both without sphincterotomy for removal of large bile duct stones: A propensity-matched analysis.

Endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation (EPLBD) without endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) may facilitate extraction of large bile duct stones through achieving adequate dilation of the ampulla. However, contrary to favorable long-term outcomes after endoscopic papillary balloon dilation (EPBD), that of EPLBD without EST has been little investigated. Therefore, we conducted the current study to evaluate short- and long-term outcomes of EPLBD without EST and EPBD after removal of large bile duct stones (LBDS; ≥10 mm). This retrospective study included patients without a previous history of EST, EPBD or EPLBD who underwent EPLBD without EST or EPBD for removal of LBDS. Each patient in the EPLBD without EST group was matched to a patient in the EPBD group using propensity scores. Forty-four patients in each group were matched for the analysis. Baseline characteristics were balanced after propensity matching. Rate of complete stone removal in a single session was higher (80% vs 16%, P < 0.001), number of ERCP sessions (1.3 ± 0.7 vs 2.4 ± 1.5, P < 0.001) and rate of lithotripsy use (30% vs 80%, P < 0.001) were smaller in the matched EPLBD without EST group. Contrary to null between-group differences in early adverse events (P = 0.99), a cumulative rate of late biliary complications was higher in the EPLBD without EST group (P = 0.02). EPLBD without EST showed higher efficacy for removal of LBDS but was associated with worse long-term outcomes when compared to EPBD.

Comparison of the Long-Term Outcomes of Endoscopic Papillary Large Balloon Dilation Alone versus Endoscopic Sphincterotomy for Removal of Bile Duct Stones.

Background and Aims Endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation (EPLBD) alone is an alternative to endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) for treatment of common bile duct (CBD) stones. However, limited data exists regarding comparison of the long-term outcomes for these techniques. In this study, we compared the long-term outcomes after EST with those after EPLBD alone for removal of CBD stones. Methods The records of patients with EST or EPLBD alone referred for CBD stones retrieval between June 2008 and July 2015 were retrospectively reviewed. Complete stone clearance, ERCP-related adverse events, and late biliary complications during long-term follow-up were analyzed. Results Basic patient characteristics were similar between the groups that underwent EST (n = 60) and EPLBD alone (n = 161). EPLBD compared with EST resulted in similar outcomes in terms of complete stone clearance (99.4% versus 100%, P = 0.54) and ERCP-related adverse events (6.8% versus 6.7%, P = 1.00). The mean duration of the follow-up was 74.5 months and 71.6 months who underwent EST and EPLBD alone, respectively (P = 0.42). Late biliary complications were occurred frequently in the EST group than in the EPLBD alone group (11 [18.6%] versus 16 [10.2%]), although the difference did not reach statistical significance (P = 0.11). Multivariate analysis showed that mechanical lithotripsy ([OR], 2.815; 95% CI, 1.148–6.902; P = 0.024) was significantly associated with late biliary complications. Conclusion As an alternative to EST, EPLBD has similar efficacy and safety for managing CBD stones. During long-term follow-up, patients who underwent EPLBD alone may have fewer late biliary complications compared with those after EST. In addition, mechanical lithotripsy may be an independent risk factor for late biliary complications.

Sa1274 EFFECT OF ENDOSCOPIC TRANSPAPILLARY METALLIC STENT PLACEMENT WITH/ WITHOUT ENDOSCOPIC SPHINCTEROTOMY ON POST-ERCP PANCREATITIS IN PATIENTS WITH MALIGNANT BILIARY OBSTRUCTION

Effect of endoscopic sphincterotomy (ES) prior to metallic stent (MS) placement in patients with distal malignant biliary obstruction (MBO) to prevent post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) remains to be fully elucidated, because the safety of non-adding ES for the cases without main pancreatic obstruction is unclear. To evaluate the efficacy and safety of non-adding ES prior to MS placement in patients with distal MBO, including those without MPD obstruction. Between January 2006 and August 2017, 285 patients with distal MBO were treated with MS placement in our tertial referral center, of which 74 were excluded because of a former history of ES, and/or prior MS placement. Finally, 211 patients were retrospectively enrolled in this study. Sixty-nine patients underwent ES just before MS placement (ES group), whereas 142 underwent MS placement without ES (non-ES group). We evaluated (1) the patients’ characteristics, (2) the incidence of PEP within 2 days after the procedure, (3) the incidence of bleeding, cholangitis, cholecystitis, and perforation within 30 days after the procedure, and (4) the effect of ES/ non-ES on the time to MS dysfunction. (1) Sex (man): ES, 40; non-ES, 83 (p = 0.947). Age (median): ES, 71 (range, 11–89); non-ES, 67 (range, 43–90) (p = 0.659). The etiology of MBO (bile duct cancer/ gall bladder cancer/ lymph node metastasis/ pancreatic cancer/ ampullary cancer): ES, 12/4/12/41/0; non-ES, 14/3/12/107/6 (p = 0.018). MPD obstruction: ES, 43; non-ES, 117 (p = 0.019). (2) PEP occurred in 11 patients in the ES group and in 20 in the non-ES group (p = 0.721). Among the patients without MPD obstruction (26 in the ES group and 25 in the non-ES group), PEP occurred in 10 patients in the ES group and in five in the non-ES group (p = 0.148). (3) Bleeding was significantly higher in the ES group (three patients) than in the non-ES group (zero patient, p = 0.034). Further, the incidence of cholangitis (four vs. five patients, p = 0.13), cholecystitis (four vs. four patients, p = 0.497), and perforation (zero patient in both) in the ES and non-ES groups, respectively, was not significantly different. (4) The median follow-up periods in the ES and non-ES groups were 191 (range, 14–999) and 204 (range, 12–1846) days, respectively. MS dysfunction was observed in 15 and 30 patients in the ES and non-ES groups, respectively (p = 0.919). The median time to MS dysfunction in the ES and non-ES groups was 145 (range, 6–465) and 114 (range, 2–759) days, respectively (p = 0.803). The study concluded that performing ES prior to MS placement for distal MBO does not reduce the incidence of PEP, but elevates the risks of bleeding related to ES. Hence, routine ES should be avoided prior to MS placement for distal MBO.

The Impact of Cholecystectomy After Endoscopic Sphincterotomy for Complicated Gallstone Disease.

Cholecystectomy after endoscopic sphincterotomy (ES) is associated with improved outcomes compared to ES alone, however randomized trials have included mainly fit surgical candidates. Our objective was to assess the impact of cholecystectomy after ES among elderly patients, in whom the perceived risks of surgery may be increased and the prevailing bias may be to defer cholecystectomy. We performed adjusted analyses comparing clinical outcomes in patients ≥65 years of age who did and did not undergo follow-up cholecystectomy after endoscopic sphincterotomy for choledocholithiasis, ascending cholangitis, or gallstone pancreatitis. We also compared adverse events between the two groups. In the ES alone group, 39.3% of patients experienced a recurrent complication compared with 18.0% in the ES and cholecystectomy group. After adjusting for comorbidities using multivariable regression, cholecystectomy in addition to ES was associated with a reduced risk of recurrent choledocholithiasis (OR 0.38, 95%CI 0.34-0.42, P<0.001), ascending cholangitis (OR 0.28, 95%CI 0.23-0.34, P<0.001), and gallstone pancreatitis (OR 0.35, 95%CI 0.24-0.49, P<0.001) compared to ES alone. This benefit was preserved after propensity score adjustment, in patients ≥75 years of age, and in those with major comorbidities including cancer, heart failure, and liver disease. Serious post-operative complications such as myocardial infarction, pulmonary embolism, and pneumonia were not more common in the cholecystectomy group. Among older patients, including those with serious comorbidities, cholecystectomy after endoscopic sphincterotomy was associated with a significant and clinically important reduction in recurrent complications compared to sphincterotomy alone. This benefit did not appear to be outweighed by surgical complications, highlighting the importance of cholecystectomy, even in elderly patients whose lifespans may be limited by unrelated conditions.