Removal Of Bile Duct Stones Research Articles

A comparison between non-sedation and general endotracheal anesthesia for retrograde endoscopic common bile duct stone removal: A tertiary center experience

BackgroundConscious sedation is not routinely administered for therapeutic endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in many countries. The aim of our retrospective study was to compare the safety and rate of success and complications during common bile duct (CBD) stone extraction using ERCPs performed with no-sedation (NS) or under general endotracheal anesthesia (GET). MethodsThe medical records of all patients who underwent ERCP for biliary stone extraction between January 2010 and September 2013 were reviewed, and patients classified to the NS and GET groups. The primary outcomes were the rate of success of complete stone removal and rate of complications, including post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP), perforation, bleeding, pneumonia, and mortality within 30 days post-ERCP. Operative time was recorded for analysis. ResultsDuring the study period, 630 patients underwent ERCP, 402 with NS and 105 with GET. Among the 402 patients in the NS group, 37 (9.2%) could not complete the procedure due to an inability to tolerate the procedure. The success rate of complete stone extraction was higher among patients in the GET group than the NS group (94.3% versus 75.6%, respectively; p < 0.001). The rate of contrast injection into the pancreatic duct was higher for the NS than GET group (24.9% versus 15.2%, respectively; p = 0.008). Although non-significant, there was a higher incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) in the NS than in the GET group (10.4% versus 5.7%, respectively; p = 0.105), while the incidence of pneumonia was higher for the GET group. Biliary pancreatitis, contrast injection into the pancreatic duct and an operation time ≥30 min were independent risks factors for PEP. ConclusionsERCP under GET is effective for CBD stone removal, but with slightly higher pneumonia rate after the procedure than non-sedated ERCP.

Multiple recurrences after endoscopic removal of common bile duct stones: A retrospective analysis of 976 cases.

Recurrences after endoscopic treatment of common bile duct stones (CBDS) are common. The aims of this study were to identify risk factors for recurrences of CBDS and to evaluate the effect of interventions for prevention of further recurrences. A total of 976 patients who underwent endoscopic treatment of CBDS were retrospectively studied. Risk factors for single and multiple recurrent CBDS were evaluated using a Cox hazard regression model. The incidences of further recurrences were evaluated according to the additional interventions. The mean age was 69.3years, and 39.3% were female. Endoscopic papillary balloon dilation, endoscopic sphincterotomy, and endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation were performed in 858, 77, and 41 patients, respectively. The rates of one or more recurrence and multiple recurrences of CBDS were 12.4% and 2.7%, respectively. In the multivariate analyses, the significant risk factors were the bile duct size (hazard ratio [HR] 1.07, P=0.012), gallbladder left in situ with stones (HR 1.91, P=0.046), and pneumobilia after treatment (HR 2.10, P=0.047) for single recurrence and the number of stones at the first recurrence (HR 1.16, P=0.021) for multiple recurrences. In five out of nine cases with multiple recurrences, further recurrence was not observed after additional sphincteroplasty in addition to cholecystectomy. The incidence of multiple recurrences was not uncommon after the first recurrence of CBDS.

Laparsopcic removal of an intraductal ERCP stone retrieval basket following guide wire fracture

Background: Gallstones within the common bile duct are a common cause of biliary obstruction. Therapeutic endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and stone retrieval using either balloon catheters or wire basket devices is the gold standard treatment. Methods: We present the case of an 85 year old lady who presented with obstructive jaundice and deranged LFTs. Ultrasound confirmed choledocholithiasis and common bile duct (CBD) dilation. She proceeded to ERCP and sphincterotomy where multiple CBD stones were noted, the largest measuring 12 mm. Prior to removal using a wire basket device an attempt was made to crush the largest stone. In doing so the guidewire fractured with the basket and stone still within the common bile duct. A rescue mechanical lithotriptor was used in an attempt to clear the duct unsuccessfully. Further attempts to remove the stone and basket through the sphincterotomy were also unsuccessful and the patient proceeded to laparoscopy. Results: A four port laparoscopic approach was used with x1 12 mm umbilical port and x3 5 mm epigastric and right subcostal ports. A longitudinal choledochotomy revealed several stones and the wire basket. The wires were cut using scissors and the basket was retrieved along with the large impacted stone. Proximal and distal ducts were cleared using a fogarty balloon catheter. The CBD was closed using interrupted intracorporeal vicryl sutures and a T-Tube was inserted. A cholecystectomy was then performed and the specimen along with the wire basket and stones were removed using an endobag through the umbilical port. The T-Tube was brought out though one of the right subcostal ports. The patient returned to the ward and had an uncomplicated post op recovery. The T-Tube was removed several weeks later following a satisfactory tube cholangiogram. Discussion ERCP is the gold standard of treatment for the removal of common bile duct stones, with a success rate of over 95%.(1) Wire basket retention as a result of stone impaction within the basket and less commonly as a result of guide wire fracture occurs in 0.6% of cases. (2). Management of these complications can involve the use of balloon catheters, further mechanical lithotripsy techniques and in the setting of an impacted stone, extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL). However if these endoscopic methods fail then surgical intervention is indicated. Conclusion: Intraductal ERCP wire basket retention following wire fracture can be safely and effectively managed laparoscopically when traditional endoscopic methods have failed. This is associated with a significantly reduced level of morbidity when compared to traditional laparotomy and in specialist centres it should be considered as a first line treatment in such cases. (we have excellent video for this case that was not available at the time of this submission but will be accessible in the coming days)

Digital cholangioscopy-guided laser versus mechanical lithotripsy for large bile duct stone removal after failed papillary large-balloon dilation: a randomized study.

Endoscopic papillary large-balloon dilation (EPLBD) allows for the complete removal of large common bile duct (CBD) stones without fragmentation; however, a significant proportion of very large stones and stones floating above a tapering CBD require lithotripsy. Mechanical lithotripsy and cholangioscopy-guided laser lithotripsy are both effective for stone fragmentation. This study aimed to directly compare, for the first time, the efficacy of these two techniques in terms of stone clearance rate, procedure duration, patient radiation exposure, and safety. 32 patients with very large CBD stones or with stones floating above a tapering CBD, and in whom extraction after standard sphincterotomy and/or EPLBD had failed, were randomly assigned to mechanical lithotripsy or cholangioscopy-guided laser lithotripsy at two tertiary referral centers. Crossover was allowed as a rescue treatment if the assigned technique failed. Patients' demographic data were not different between the two groups. Mechanical lithotripsy had a significantly lower stone clearance rate in the first session compared with laser lithotripsy (63% vs. 100%; P < 0.01). Laser lithotripsy rescued 60% of patients with failed mechanical lithotripsy by achieving complete stone clearance within the same session. Radiation exposure of patients was significantly higher in the mechanical lithotripsy group than in the laser lithotripsy group (40 745 vs. 20 989 mGycm2; P = 0.04). Adverse events (13% vs. 6%; P = 0.76) and length of hospital stay (1 vs. 1 day; P = 0.27) were not different. Although mechanical lithotripsy is the standard of care for a very large CBD stone after failed EPLBD, where available, cholangioscopy-guided laser lithotripsy is considered the better option for the treatment of this entity as it provides a higher success rate and lower radiation exposure.

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 papillary large balloon dilation without sphincterotomy for users of antithrombotic agents: A multicenter retrospective study.

With an aging population, an increasing number of individuals on antithrombotic agents are diagnosed with large bile duct stones. Studies have shown the effectiveness of endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation (EPLBD) for removal of large bile duct stones. EPLBD without endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) may reduce the risk of procedure-related bleeding, but the safety of this procedure for users of antithrombotic agents remains unclear. In this multicenter retrospective study, we included patients who underwent EPLBD without EST for bile duct stones between March 2008 and December 2017. We compared adverse events and other clinical outcomes between users and non-users of antithrombotic agents (antiplatelet agents and anticoagulants). We analyzed a total of 144 patients (47 users and 97 non-users of antithrombotic agents). Among the users, the agents were continued in 13% and were replaced with heparin in 62% during the periprocedural period. We did not observe clinically significant bleeding and thrombotic events irrespective of the use of antithrombotic agents. Overall rate of early adverse events did not differ between users and non-users (6.4% and 7.2%, P = 0.99). Procedural outcomes did not differ between the groups (necessity for lithotripsy, 28% vs. 29%; and complete stone removal in a single session, 72% vs. 71%, for users and non-users, respectively). Endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation without EST may be done without a substantial increase in procedure-related bleeding for users of antithrombotic agents. A larger study is required to refine the management strategy for those agents during the periprocedural period.

A cumulative meta-analysis of endoscopic papillary balloon dilation versus endoscopic sphincterotomy for removal of common bile duct stones

Endoscopic papillary balloon dilation (EPBD) was introduced to overcome the risk of adverse events associated with endoscopic sphincterotomy in the removal of common bile duct (CBD) stones. We performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing efficacy and safety of EPBD vs. endoscopic sphincterotomy, focusing on stone size, balloon diameter, and balloon dilation time. A multiple database search was performed, including MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library, from their inception date until October 2017. RCTs comparing the efficacy and safety of EPBD vs. endoscopic sphincterotomy in the removal of CBD stones were included. Cumulative meta-analyses over time, and subgroup analyses according to stone size, and balloon diameter and dilation time were carried out. 25 RCTs met the inclusion criteria. Despite the cumulative meta-analysis showing a trend over time in favor of endoscopic sphincterotomy in studies published up to 2004, the conventional meta-analysis revealed that EPBD was equally efficacious compared with endoscopic sphincterotomy in stone removal at first attempt (odds ratio [OR] 0.95, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.65 - 1.38). Endoscopic sphincterotomy was superior to EPBD in terms of overall stone clearance (OR 0.65, 95 %CI 0.43 - 0.99) in studies published since 2002, but no differences emerged in studies using large ( ≥ 10 mm) balloons (OR 1.37, 95 %CI 0.72 - 2.62). No statistically significant difference in pancreatitis occurrence emerged between EPBD and endoscopic sphincterotomy (OR 1.35, 95 %CI 0.90 - 2.03). Pancreatitis was more common with EPBD than with endoscopic sphincterotomy in studies using balloons < 10 mm (OR 1.78, 95 %CI 1.07 - 2.97), whereas no difference emerged in studies using large balloons (OR 0.84, 95 %CI 0.46 - 1.53). EPBD had lower rates of bleeding and cholecystitis. Our latest data confirm that EPBD is currently inferior to endoscopic sphincterotomy in terms of overall stone clearance. However, EPBD using large balloons (≥ 10 mm) was as effective as endoscopic sphincterotomy, both in stone clearance and the need for endoscopic mechanical lithotripsy, without carrying an increased risk of pancreatitis.

Comparison of endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation with and without a prior endoscopic sphincterotomy for the treatment of patients with large and/or multiple common bile duct stones: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

AimTo compare endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation (EPLBD) alone with EPLBD following endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) in patients with large and/or multiple common bile duct stones.MethodsWe conducted a comprehensive search of PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library database to identify relevant available articles until July 19, 2018. Complete common bile duct stone (CBDS) removal rate, frequency of mechanical lithotripsy (ML) usage, total procedure time and intra- and postoperative adverse events were analyzed. We used RevMan 5.3 to perform the pooled analyses.ResultsSeven RCTs matched the selection criteria. A total of 369 patients underwent EPLBD alone, and 367 patients underwent EPLBD following EST. Our meta-analysis revealed that there were no significant differences in terms of initial success rate (OR =0.69, 95% CI=0.44–1.09, P=0.11), frequency of ML usage (OR =1.18, 95% CI=0.68–2.05, P=0.55), rate of post-endoscopy pancreatitis (PEP) (OR =0.88, 95% CI=0.43–1.78, P=0.72), total procedure time (MD =1.52, 95% CI=-0.13–3.17, P=0.07), or other intra- and postoperative adverse events between the groups for patients with large and/or multiple CBDSs.ConclusionsEPLBD alone was comparable to EPLBD with prior EST in patients with large and/or multiple CBDSs. Further studies are required to confirm the mechanisms of PEP in patients who accept EPLBD during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP).

Transluminal intrahepatic bile duct stone removal using coaxial basket catheter via the previously created EUS-guided hepaticogastrostomy tract (with videos).

Transluminal intrahepatic bile duct stone removal using coaxial basket catheter via the previously created EUS-guided hepaticogastrostomy tract (with videos).

Ursodeoxycholic acid after common bile duct stones removal for prevention of recurrence: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Introduction:The recurrence rate of common bile duct stones (CBDS) after removal has been reported to exceed 10% and no established pharmacologic treatment exists for the prevention of recurrent CBDS. Many studies indicated ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) has the potential to prevent the recurrence of CBDS. The aim of this systematic review is to evaluate the effects of UDCA for prevention of recurrence after common bile duct stones removal.Methods and analysis:We will systematically screen all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published through electronically and hand searching. The following search engines including Ovid Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, Proquest, Scopus, Web of Science, Pubmed, the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, the China National Knowledge Infrastructure, VIP Information, Wanfang Data. Supplementary sources will be searched including gray literature, conference proceedings, and potential identified publications in OpenGrey.eu and Google Scholar databases. Two reviewers will independently conduct the trial inclusion, data extraction and assess the quality of studies. The recurrence rate of CBDS will be assessed as the primary outcomes. The adverse event that required discontinuation of UDCA intervention and the drop-outs (lost to follow-up) before the end of the study will be measured as secondary outcomes. Methodological quality will be evaluated according to the Cochrane risk of bias. All analyses will be applied by RevMan (version 5.3).Results:This systemic review and meta-analysis will evaluate the effects of UDCA for prevention of recurrence after CBDS removal in RCTs.Conclusion:Our study will provide evidence to judge whether UDCA is an effective intervention to prevent the recurrence after CBDS removal.

Common Bile Duct Stone Removal with Side-viewing Duodenoscope after Forward-Viewing Endoscope-Guided Pancreatic Stent Insertion in a Patient with Periampullary Diverticulum

Common Bile Duct Stone Removal with Side-viewing Duodenoscope after Forward-Viewing Endoscope-Guided Pancreatic Stent Insertion in a Patient with Periampullary Diverticulum

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in Roux-en-Y gastric bypass patients.

Roux-en-Y gastric bypass surgery remains a popular surgical intervention worldwide to treat morbid obesity. It is effective and relatively safe. However, one of the results related to bariatric surgery-induced rapid weight loss is the development of biliary stones. Endoscopic removal of common bile duct stones is challenging in patients with Roux-en-Y gastric bypass reconstruction. The current review highlights the different endoscopic approaches of the biliopancreatic system to perform endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in patients with Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. A treatment algorithm is provided based on clinical indications.

Long-term prognosis after biliary stenting for common bile duct stones in high-risk elderly patients.

To evaluate the long-term outcomes of complete common bile duct (CBD) stone removal and biliary stenting in elderly patients (≥85 years) with CBD stones. We retrospectively examined 65 patients who underwent complete CBD stone removal (the duct clearance group) and 40 patients who underwent biliary stenting (the biliary stenting group) between July 2006 and March 2016. To reduce selection bias, we also conducted a propensity score matching analysis and generated 30 pairs of patients. Cholangitis recurrence-free survival and overall survival were compared between the two groups and independent prognostic factors of survival were identified by univariate and multivariate analyses. Cholangitis recurrence-free survival was significantly better in the duct clearance group than in the biliary stenting group (P < 0.001). Their overall survival did not significantly differ after propensity score matching (P = 0.388). In all cohorts, univariate analysis demonstrated that poor performance status and biliary stenting were factors of poor prognosis, and in multivariate analysis only performance status remained associated with poor prognosis for survival. Similarly, in the propensity score-matched cohort, only performance status independently predicted poorer survival (hazard ratio [HR] 2.726, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.105-6.675, P = 0.029). The choice of endoscopic treatment was not a significant factor associated with prognosis (HR 1.354, 95% CI 0.678-2.701, P = 0.391). Biliary stenting was similar to complete stone removal in terms of prognosis for long-term survival. Biliary stenting for CBD stones could be an effective therapeutic tool in high-risk elderly patients.

Percutaneous Transcholecystic Removal of Common Bile Duct Stones: Case Series in 114 Patients.

Purpose To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of percutaneous transcholecystic removal of common bile duct (CBD) stones in 114 patients. Materials and Methods This retrospective study was approved by the institutional review board. From September 2011 through February 2017, 114 consecutive patients (68 men, 46 women; mean age, 73 years) underwent percutaneous transcholecystic removal of CBD stones. All patients had acute cholangitis or cholecystitis. Stones were extracted through a 12-F sheath by using a Wittich nitinol stone basket uder fluoroscopic guidance. Technical success rates, complications, and long-term follow-up were evaluated. Results Technical success was achieved in 96 of 114 (84.2%) patients. In 18 patients, stone removal was unsuccessful due to failure of cystic duct cannulation (n = 11), proximal migration of the CBD stone (n = 3), multiple CBD stones (n = 3), and low insertion of the cystic duct (n = 1). No major procedure-related complications were seen. During the mean follow-up of 644 days (range, 11-2206 days), CBD stones recurred in 12 patients after a mean of 884 days (range, 439-1799 days) after the procedure. Conclusion Percutaneous transcholecystic removal of common bile duct stones seems to be a safe and effective method. © RSNA, 2018 Online supplemental material is available for this article . See also the editorial by vanSonnenberg and Panchanathan in this issue.

Intrahepatic bile duct stone removal using peroral transluminal cholangioscopy (with videos).

Intrahepatic bile duct stone removal using peroral transluminal cholangioscopy (with videos).

Comparison between endoscopic sphincterotomy combined with large-balloon dilation and endoscopic large-balloon dilation alone in removal of large bile duct stones

Objective To compare the efficacy of endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) combined with large-balloon dilation (LBD) and that of LBD alone for large bile duct stones. Methods Data of 61 patients who received EST combined with LBD (the combination group) and 48 patients who received LBD alone (the LBD group) from February 2008 to November 2014 were collected. The efficacy and adverse events of two groups were compared. Results The procedure time from successful cannulating to complete stone removal was shorter in the LBD group than that in the combination group [17.3 min (8-35 min) VS 21.5 min (10-42 min), P=0.041]. There were no significant differences in overall complete stone removal rate[90.2% (55/61) VS 91.7% (44/48), P=1.000] and complete stone removal rate without mechanical lithotripsy[78.7% (48/61) VS 83.3% (40/48), P=0.542] in the combination group and the LBD group. Massive bleeding occurred in one patient of the combination group, but was successfully coagulated under endoscopy. There was no significant difference in the incidence of postoperative pancreatitis between the two groups[4.9% (3/61) VS 6.3% (3/48), P=1.000]. Conclusion EST combined with LBD offers no significant advantage over LBD alone for the removal of large bile duct stones. LBD can simplify the procedure compared with EST combined with LBD in terms of shortening the procedure time. Key words: Choledocholithiasis; Endoscopic large-balloon dilation; Endoscopic sphincterotomy

Comparison between endoscopic sphincterotomy vs endoscopic sphincterotomy associated with balloon dilation for removal of bile duct stones: A systematic review and meta-analysis based on randomized controlled trials.

AIMTo compare gallstones removal rate and incidence of bleeding, pancreatitis, use of mechanical lithotripsy, cholangitis and perforation between isolated sphincterotomy vs sphincterotomy associated with balloon dilation of papilla in choledocholithiasis through the meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.METHODSWe conducted a systematic review according to the PRISMA guidelines. Literature search was restricted to randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on MedLine, Cochrane Library, LILACS, and EMBASE database platforms in July 2017. The manual search included references of retrieved articles. We extracted data focusing on outcomes: The primary endpoint was the stones removal rate; Secondary endpoints were rates of pancreatitis, bleeding, use of mechanical lithotripsy (ML), perforation and cholangitis.RESULTSEleven RCTs with 1824 patients were included. EST was associated with more post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) bleeding [FE RD-0.02, CI (-0.03, -0.00), I2 = 33%, P = 0.05] and more need of mechanical lithotripsy in general [RE RD-0.16, CI (-0.25, -0.06), I2 = 90%, P = 0.002] and in subgroup analysis of stones greater than 15 mm [RE RD-0.20, CI (-0.38, -0.02), I2 = 82%, P = 0.003]. Incidence of pancreatitis [FE RD-0.01, CI (-0.03, 0.01), I2 = 0, P = 0.36], cholangitis [FE RD-0.00, CI (-0.01, 0.01), I2 =0, P = 0.97] and perforation [FE RD-0.01, CI (-0.01, 0.00), I2 = 0, P = 0.23] was similar between the groups as well as similar stone removal rates in general [FE RD-0.01, CI (-0.01, 0.04), I2 = 0, P = 0.23] and pooled analysis of stones greater than 15 mm [FE RD-0.02, CI (-0.02, 0.07), I2 = 11%, P = 0.31].CONCLUSIONThrough meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials we found that isolated sphincterotomy was associated with more post-ERCP bleeding and more need for mechanical lithotripsy. However, there was no statistical difference in the stone removal rate between isolated sphincterotomy and sphincterotomy associated with balloon dilation in the approach to remove gallstones.

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.

Successful bile duct stone removal by ERCP in a patient with situs inversus

Successful bile duct stone removal by ERCP in a patient with situs inversus

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.