Endoscopic Papillary Balloon Dilation/Endoscopic Papillary Large Balloon Dilation / 대한췌담도학회지

Endoscopic papillary balloon dilation (EPBD) and endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation (EPLBD) have been performed all around the world over several decades for the treatment of common bile duct stone. EPBD using small dilation balloon catheter can preserve sphincter of Oddi function and reduce the recurrence rate of bile duct stone compared to endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST). EPBD is a procedure with low risk of bleeding, which is appropriate for patients with coagulopathy, hepatic cirrhosis, end-stage of renal disease, and surgically altered anatomy such as Billroth II gastrectomy and periampullary diverticulum. However, it has a higher risk of postprocedure pancreatitis than EST. EPLBD using large balloon catheter (12 mm or more of diameter) is proper for more than 10 mm of common bile duct stone. The advantages of EPLBD are reduced need for mechanical lithotripsy with decreased procedure time and radiation exposure time irrespective of the precedence of EST. EPLBD also requires fewer endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography sessions and is more cost-effective. The incidence of post-procedure pancreatitis is lower in EPLBD than EST. If EPBD and EPLBD are done under the guidelines, these would be safe and effective and may be alternatives to EST for common bile duct stone.

Comparison between endoscopic sphincterotomy combined with large-balloon dilation and endoscopic large-balloon dilation alone in removal of large bile duct stones / 中华消化内镜杂志

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.

The application of endoscopic sphincterotomy combined with endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation in the treatment of choledocholithiasis / 天津医药

Objective To investigate the effect of endoscopic sphincterotomy(EST) combined with endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation(EPLBD) in the treatment of common bile duct stones. Methods A total of 128 patients treated with EST combined with EPLBD for common bile duct stones were divided into 0 min group, 1 min group, 3 min group and 5 min group, according to the different balloon expansion times. The balloon was extended to the required diameter and was maintained to the corresponding time, and then decreased the pressure to remove the balloon. Patients were given routine monitoring and treatment after operation. All patients were observed more than 48 h to determine whether there were early complications such as pancreatitis and bleeding. The effectiveness of EPLBD was evaluated by the stone diameter, expansion balloon diameter, ERCP operation time and use of stone breaker. The safety was evaluated by the occurrence of complications including postoperative pancreatitis, bleeding and perforation. Results All patients were successfully removed stones. There were no significant differences in the maximum diameter of stone, the diameter of bile duct dilatation and the diameter of balloon dilatation between groups. No bleeding, perforation, biliary tract infection and acute pancreatitis were found in patients. There were no significant differences in the utilization rates of stone breaker between groups. ERCP operation times showed a trend of decreased first and then increased in 0, 1 and 3 min groups (P<0.05). There was no significant difference in ERCP operation time between 3 min group and 0 min group. There were no significant differences in incidence rates of high amylase between groups. Conclusion EST combined with EPLBD is a safe and effective treatment for early stage of larger common bile duct stones, of which 1 minute group shows better effect.

Small endoscopic sphincterotomy combined large-balloon dilation versus endoscopic sphincterotomy in treatment of common bile duct stones 1.0~2.5 cm in diameter / 中国内镜杂志

Objective To evaluate the clinical efficacy of small endoscopic sphincterotomy combined large-bal-loon dilation in treatment of common bile duct stones 1.0~2.5 cm in diameter. Methods 426 patients with large common bile duct (CBD) stones 1.0~2.5 cm in size were reviewed in our hospital between June 2010 and June 2014. They were randomized underwent small endoscopic sphincterotomy combined large-balloon dilation (SESPLBD) (n=218) or endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) ( n= 208) for lithotripsy. The therapeutic outcome and complications were reviewed and compared. Results SESPLBD had higher complete duct clearance in one session (95.41 % vs. 93.75%), but there was no statistical significant difference. Bleeding was much less occurred in SESPLBD than in EST (2.29 % vs. 7.69 %, P= 0.025), especially when the stones were bigger than 1.5 cm in diameter. Mechanical lithotripsy was performed less in SESPLBD (13.76%vs 25.96 %, P=0.002), especially when the stones were 1.5 ~2.0 cm in diameter. There was no statistical significant difference in the incidence rate of post-ERCP pancreatitis (9.17 % vs. 6.73 %,P = 0.452), hyperamylasemia (19.72 % vs. 18.27 %,P = 0.796), perforation and death. Conclusions SESPLBD could be a safe method for large bile duct stones 1.0~2.5 cm in size. Compared with routine EST, it had less bleeding rate and mechanical lithotripsy requirement without increasing the incidence rate of post-ERCP pancreatitis or hyperamylasemia.

Limited endoscopic sphincterotomy combined with endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation for common bile duct stones in elderly patients / 中华消化内镜杂志

Objective To evaluate the efficacy and safety of minor endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST)with endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation(EPLBD)for common bile duct stones(CBDS)in elderly patients and to study the influence of the periampullary diverticula on efficacy. Methods Data of 209 patients with CBD stones(more than 1. 0 cm)over the age of 70 were retrospectively analyzed. The pa-tients were divided into EST group(103 cases)and the EST with EPLBD group(106 cases),which was further divided into two subgroups with and without periampullary diverticula.Operation time,complete stone removal rate in the first session,mechanical lithotripsy usage rate and complications were compared between the two groups. Results Compared with EST group,the EST with EPLBD group had shorter operation time [(25. 65±8. 76)min VS(35±6. 67)min,P= 0. 000],a higher success rate of the complete stone removal in the first session( 90. 57% VS 83. 50%,P = 0. 030),lower rate of mechanical lithotripsy( 8. 50% VS 55. 34%,P= 0. 000),but with a higher incidence of hyperamylemia(18/ 106 VS 7/ 103,P = 0. 044).The o-verall stone removal rates showed no difference(96. 23% VS 95. 14%,P= 0. 700).In the EPLBD group,di-verticulum had no effects on the results and complications of ERCP( P> 0. 05). Conclusion EST with EPLBD is a safe and effective method for CBDS in elderly patients. Periampullary diverticula does not affect the therapeutic effects of this method.

Is endoscopic sphincterotomy plus large-balloon dilation a better option than endoscopic large-balloon dilation alone in removal of large bile duct stones? A retrospective comparison study.

Background: Several comparison studies have demonstrated that endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) combined with large-balloon dilation (LBD) may be a better option than EST alone to manage large bile duct stones. However, limited data were available to compare this combination method with LBD alone in removal of large bile duct stones. Objective: To compare EST plus LBD and LBD alone for the management of large bile duct stones, and analyze the outcomes of each method. Patients and Methods: Sixty-one patients were included in the EST plus LBD group, and 48 patients were included in the LBD alone group retrospectively. The therapeutic success, clinical characteristics, procedure-related parameters and adverse events were compared. Results: Compared with EST plus LBD, LBD alone was more frequently performed in patients with potential bleeding diathesis or anatomical changes (P = 0.021). The procedure time from successful cannulating to complete stone removal was shorter in the LBD alone group significantly (21.5 vs. 17.3 min, P = 0.041). The EST plus LBD group and the LBD alone group had similar outcomes in terms of overall complete stone removal (90.2% vs. 91.7%, P = 1.000) and complete stone removal without the need for mechanical lithotripsy (78.7% vs. 83.3%, P = 0.542). Massive bleeding occurred in one patient of the EST plus LBD group, and successfully coagulated. Postoperative pancreatitis did not differ significantly between the EST plus LBD group and the LBD alone group (4.9% vs. 6.3%; P = 1.000). Conclusion: Endoscopic sphincterotomy 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 plus LBD in terms of shorten the procedure time.

Which Is the Better Treatment for the Removal of Large Biliary Stones? Endoscopic Papillary Large Balloon Dilation versus Endoscopic Sphincterotomy

BACKGROUND/AIMS: We evaluated the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation (EPLBD) for large common bile duct (CBD) stone removal compared with endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST). METHODS: A total of 1,580 patients who underwent endoscopic CBD stone extraction between January 2001 and July 2010 were reviewed. The following inclusion criteria were applied: choledocholithiasis treated by EPLBD with minor EST or EST with mechanical lithotripsy; and follow-up >9 months after treatment. RESULTS: Forty-nine patients with EPLBD and 41 with EST were compared. There was no significant difference in the complication rates and stone recurrence rates between the two groups. However, significantly more endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) sessions were required in the EST group to achieve the complete removal of stones (1.7 times vs 1.3 times; p=0.03). The mean cost required for complete stone removal per patient was significantly higher in the EST group compared to the EPLBD group (USD $1,644 vs $1,225, respectively; p=0.04). Dilated CBD was the only significant factor associated with recurrent biliary stones (relative risk, 1.09; 95% confidence interval, 1.02 to 1.17; p=0.02). CONCLUSIONS: EPLBD is the better treatment (compared to EST) for removing large CBD stones because EPLBD requires fewer ERCP sessions and is less expensive.

A Comparison Study of Ballooning Time between Immediate and Conventional Deflation Method of Endoscopic Papillary Large Balloon Dilation for the Extraction of Difficult Bile Duct Stone / 대한췌담도학회지

BACKGROUND/AIMS: The ballooning time in endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation (EPLBD) remains controversial. The aim of this study was to evaluate the significance of the ballooning time comparing an immediate balloon deflation method with a conventional ballooning time of > 45 seconds. METHODS: Between January 2010 and December 2010, 126 patients with bile duct stones treated with EPLBD and endoscopic sphincterotomy were divided according to the ballooning time: the immediate deflation group (n=56) and the conventional inflation group (ballooning time 45s to < 60s) (n=70). RESULTS: The overall success rate and the success rate of the first attempt of ERCP (endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography) were 96.4% (54/56) and 80.4% (45/56) in the immediate group and 97.1% (68/70) and 77.1% (54/70) in the conventional inflation group. There were no statistically significant differences in the overall success and the first attempt of ERCP success rate (p=0.99, p=0.66). The frequency of mechanical lithotripsy was 0% in the immediate deflation group and 7.1% in the conventional inflation group (p=0.065). Complications occurred in 3.6% (2/56) patients in the immediate deflation group and 8.6% (4/70) patients in the conventional inflation group (p=0.298). CONCLUSIONS: The ballooning time in EPLBD does not affect the outcomes of the treatment for bile duct stones. And the feasibility of the immediate deflation method in EPLBD is acceptable.

Late Complications and Stone Recurrence Rates after Bile Duct Stone Removal by Endoscopic Sphincterotomy and Large Balloon Dilation are Similar to Those after Endoscopic Sphincterotomy Alone

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Between endoscopic sphincterotomy (ES) alone and combined endoscopic sphincterotomy and large balloon dilation (ES-LBD) groups, efficacy and long-term complications, difference in biliary stone recurrence rate, and risk factors of stone recurrence were compared. METHODS: Medical records of 222 patients who underwent ERCP for biliary stone removal were retrospectively reviewed. Patients with dilated CBD > or =11 mm and follow-up longer than 6 months were included. RESULTS: There were 101 patients in ES-LBD group and 121 patients in ES group. Mean follow-up duration was 25.0 (6-48) months and 13.0 (6-43) months, respectively (p=0.001). There was no difference in number of ERCP sessions, brown pigment stones, angle between mid and distal common bile duct (CBD angle) <135degrees, and lithotripsy rate. Complete retrieval success rate was excellent in both groups (100% vs. 99%). Early complication rate of ES-LBD and ES alone group was 4 and 4.1%, respectively (p=1.000). One patient in ES-LBD group died from delayed bleeding. Late complication rate was 5.9 and 3.3%, respectively (p=1.000). Stone recurrence rate was 6.9% and 5.8%, respectively (p=0.984). The only Independent risk factor of stone recurrence was presence of periampullary diverticulum. CONCLUSIONS: Late complication and stone recurrence rates were similar between ES-LBD and ES alone groups.

Endoscopic Papillary Large Balloon Dilation: Guidelines for Pursuing Zero Mortality

Since endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation (EPLBD) is used to treat benign disease and as a substitute for conventional methods, such as endoscopic sphincterotomy plus endoscopic mechanical lithotripsy, we should aim for zero mortality. This review defines EPLBD and suggests guidelines for its use based on a review of published articles and our large-scale multicenter retrospective review.

Recurrence of Bile Duct Stones after Endoscopic Papillary Large Balloon Dilation Combined with Limited Sphincterotomy: Long-Term Follow-Up Study

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Endoscopic papillary large-balloon dilation combined with limited endoscopic sphincterotomy (EPLBD+ES) is promising for the treatment of common bile duct (CBD) stones. The aim of this study was to clarify the recurrence rate and the risk factors for CBD stones after EPLBD+ES. METHODS: In total, 100 patients who underwent EPLBD+ES from 2006 to 2007 were evaluated retrospectively. One hundred and nine patients who were treated with endoscopic sphincterotomy (ES) from 2004 to 2005 were set as the historical control group. Various risk factors for the recurrence of bile duct stones were analyzed. RESULTS: Of the 209 patients, the duration of follow-up was 32.5+/-4.5 months in the EPLBD+ES group and 31.8+/-6.0 months in the ES group. The recurrence rate of CBD stones was 11.0% (11/100) in the EPLBD+ES group and 13.8% (15/109) in the ES group (p=0.546). The cumulative recurrence rate of stones was not significantly different between the EPLBD+ES and ES groups (log rank, p=0.537). Univariate analysis showed that the diameter of the CBD (> or =22 mm) was the only predictive variable that could differentiate recurrence from nonrecurrence in the EPLBD+ES group. Multivariate analysis revealed that the diameter of the bile duct was the only risk factor for stone recurrence (p=0.022; odds ratio, 1.175; 95% confidence interval, 1.023 to 1.348). CONCLUSIONS: The recurrence rate of CBD stones after EPLBD+ES is comparable to that of the ES group, and a dilated CBD appears to increase the risk of bile duct stone recurrence.

Endoscopic Papillary Large Balloon Dilation Combined with Guidewire-Assisted Precut Papillotomy for the Treatment of Choledocholithiasis in Patients with Billroth II Gastrectomy

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Endoscopic extraction of bile duct stones is difficult and often complicated in patients with a Billroth II gastrectomy. We evaluated a simpler technique to achieve an adequate ampullary opening for the removal of choledocholithiasis using endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation (EPLBD) combined with a guidewire-assisted needle-knife papillotomy. METHODS: Sixteen patients who had a Billroth II gastrectomy were included in this study. Following placement of the guidewire in the bile duct, a precut incision was made over the guidewire with a needle knife sphincterotome inserted alongside the guidewire. Balloon dilation of the ampullary orifice was gradually performed. RESULTS: Needle knife papillotomy over the guidewire with subsequent EPLBD was successful in all patients. Complete stone removal was achieved in 15 (93.7%) patients in 1 session. However, 1 (6.3%) patient required mechanical lithotripsy with an additional procedure for complete ductal clearance, and there was 1 case of minor bleeding following the EPLBD. There were no cases of pancreatitis or perforation. CONCLUSIONS: EPLBD followed by guidewire-assisted needle-knife papillotomy appears to be a useful method with few technical difficulties and a low risk of complications for the removal of bile duct stones in patients with prior Billroth II gastrectomy.

Endoscopic Papillary Balloon Dilation for Removal of Choledocholithiasis: Indications, Advantages, Complications, and Long-Term Follow-Up Results

Endoscopic papillary balloon dilation (EPBD) is an alternative method of endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST). Although concerns regarding post-procedure pancreatitis have been expressed, EPBD has come to be recognized as an effective and safe method for stone removal in specific cases. To analyze the proper indications, ideal methods, complications, and long-term follow-up results for EPBD, we reviewed articles about EPBD located through a search of the PubMed data base. We analyzed the ballooning methods, indications, results and complications of EPBD among the articles found and compared the results with those of EST. We considered the authors' own clinical experience and knowledge in developing recommendations for EPBD. EPBD showed similar efficacy and safety for the removal of choledocholithiasis to that of EST. Although large or multiple stones were difficult to remove by EPBD, it was safer and easier to apply in patients with coagulopathy or abnormal anatomy. To prevent severe pancreatitis, excessive ballooning and impractical cannulation should be avoided, and precut sphincterotomy or adjuvant prophylaxis should be considered. Due to its preservation of the sphincter of Oddi, EPBD is expected to have fewer long-term complications, such as stone recurrence, cholangitis and cholecystitis. In conclusion, EPBD appears to be safe and effective for the treatment of choledocholithiasis with proper selection of ballooning methods and patients.

The Safety and Effectiveness of Medium Endoscopic Sphincterotomy with Endoscopic Papillary Large Balloon Dilation for Removing Difficult Common Bile Duct Stones / 대한소화기내시경학회지

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Mechanical lithotripsy is generally used when it is difficult to endoscopically remove common bile duct (CBD) stones. However, this procedure not only requires extensive experience, but it is also time consuming. Medium endoscopic sphincterotomy (medium EST) combined with endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation (EPLBD) is recently being increasingly used; therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and effects of medium EST with EPLBD for patients with CBD stones that are difficult to remove. METHODS: 41 patients with CBD stones that were difficult to remove by conventional endoscopic methods were enrolled in this study. EPLBD was performed after medium EST. The size of the stones, the procedure time, complications and the total number of sessions needed for stone removal were analyzed. RESULTS: The mean size of the CBD stones was 18.2 +/- 7.7 mm, and the mean number of stones was 2.7. Additional mechanical lithotripsy for complete removal was required in 9.7% (4/41) of the patients. Procedure related complications occurred in 7% (3/41): bleeding in 1 case and acute pancreatitis in 2 cases. CONCLUSIONS: Medium EST with EPLBD was a safe and effective treatment modality for CBD stones that were difficult to remove. Further prospective randomized studies are needed for comparing the effectiveness and safety between conventional EST and medium EST with EPLBD for removing difficult CBD stones.

The Safety and Effectiveness of Medium Endoscopic Sphincterotomy with Endoscopic Papillary Large Balloon Dilation for Removing Difficult Common Bile Duct Stones / 대한소화기내시경학회지

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Mechanical lithotripsy is generally used when it is difficult to endoscopically remove common bile duct (CBD) stones. However, this procedure not only requires extensive experience, but it is also time consuming. Medium endoscopic sphincterotomy (medium EST) combined with endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation (EPLBD) is recently being increasingly used; therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and effects of medium EST with EPLBD for patients with CBD stones that are difficult to remove. METHODS: 41 patients with CBD stones that were difficult to remove by conventional endoscopic methods were enrolled in this study. EPLBD was performed after medium EST. The size of the stones, the procedure time, complications and the total number of sessions needed for stone removal were analyzed. RESULTS: The mean size of the CBD stones was 18.2 +/- 7.7 mm, and the mean number of stones was 2.7. Additional mechanical lithotripsy for complete removal was required in 9.7% (4/41) of the patients. Procedure related complications occurred in 7% (3/41): bleeding in 1 case and acute pancreatitis in 2 cases. CONCLUSIONS: Medium EST with EPLBD was a safe and effective treatment modality for CBD stones that were difficult to remove. Further prospective randomized studies are needed for comparing the effectiveness and safety between conventional EST and medium EST with EPLBD for removing difficult CBD stones.

Combined endoscopic sphincterotomy and large balloon sphincteroplasty for bile duct stones / 대한내과학회지

BACKGROUND: The combined use of small endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) followed by endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation (EPLBD) might be associated with a lower incidence of procedure-related complications such as pancreatitis, bleeding or perforation, compared to the use of EPLBD or a large EST alone. The aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate the utility of a combined EST and EPLBD method for the removal of common bile duct (CBD) stones that could not be extracted by use of an EST and conventional techniques. METHODS: Between March 2005 and September 2006, a total of 35 patients with CBD stones were enrolled. Fourteen patients had received a previous EST, and 21 patients underwent an EST. The sphincterotomy site was then dilated with a 12~18 mm diameter balloon. RESULTS: The average number of stones was 3.6+/-2.9 (range: 110). The average maximum stone diameter was 26.11+/-8.88 mm (range: 12~50 mm). Complete stone removal was accomplished in 31 patients (88.6%). In 9 patients (25.7%), a mechanical lithotripsy was required. No episode of true pancreatitis occurred. A procedure-related perforation occurred in one patient (2.8%) and the patient was treated with NPO and antibiotics. No procedure-related bleeding or mortality was observed. The procedure was performed safely in 9 patients (25.7%) with a periampullary diverticulum and in 14 patients (40.0%) with a previous EST. CONCLUSIONS: Combined EST and EPLBD may be a safe and effective method, and may be a good alternative treatment for removing CBD stones that cannot be extracted by an EST and conventional techniques. However, prospective studies based on a large number of patients are needed.