[Sphincterotomy plus large balloon dilation versus sphincterotomy alone for the extraction of complex lithiasis: A prospective analysis]. / Esfinterotomía más dilatación con balones de grandes volúmenes versusesfinterotomía en la extracción de litiasis complejas: análisis prospective.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Mid-size sphincterotomy associated with large balloon dilation is an alternative to wide sphincterotomy to remove complex lithiases. However, which of the two techniques is most effective remains unclear. Hence, we conducted this study to compare both methods prospectively. METHOD: Since January 2012 until March 2014, 133 consecutive patients with complex stones were included. Group A underwent mid-size sphincterotomy associated with large balloon dilation and group B underwent wide sphincterotomy alone. Success rates were assessed for: Extraction of stones, ductal patency rate, the use of mechanical lithotripsy, dose, time and dose per radioscopy area as well as procedure-related complications. RESULTS: Group A comprised 44 patients and group B comprised 69 patients. Overall success rate for extraction was 86.4% in group A and 70% in group B (p = 0.069). In giant lithiasis, effective extraction was 89.3% in group A and 58.6% in group B (p = 0.019). Use of mechanical lithotripsy was 15.9% and 30.4%, respectively (p = 0.142). Total radiotherapy dose was 39.8 mGy vs. 26.2 mGy, respectively (p = 0.134). Complications occurred in 6.8% and 5.5% of the procedures in each group, without significant differences among them (p = 0.856). CONCLUSION: Sphincterotomy plus large balloon dilation is more effective and equally safe than conventional sphincterotomy for the management of giant main bile duct lithiasis.

[Hilar bile duct tumors: Endoscopic or percutaneous drainage? A prospective analysis]. / Tumores hiliares biliares: ¿drenaje endoscópico o percutáneo?Análisis prospective.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Both the endoscopic and the percutaneous approach are widely accepted for the drainage of hilar tumors. Our primary objective was to report on the effectiveness and complications of these procedures. METHODS: Prospective observational analysis of the endoscopic and/or percutaneous management of all hilar tumors treated at a referral hospital from October 2011 until October 2014. Group A included patients treated endoscopically and group B included patients treated with percutaneous drainage. The following variables were assessed: Effective biliary drainage rate, survival time and complications. RESULTS: Group A comprised 40 patients and group B, 22 patients. Overall success rate in achieving effective biliary drainage was 85% in group A and 90.9% in group B (p = 0.78). Five patients required a combined approach. In group A, the rate of effective drainage in patients with Bismuth IV-type tumors was 58.3%, while it was 81.8% in patients in group B (p = 0.44). There was no difference in mean survival between both groups. For group A, complication rate was 11.5%, whereas it was 2.94% for group B (p = 0.41). CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopic and percutaneous biliary drainage are both effective methods for the palliative treatment of patients with hilar tumors. However, for Bismuth IV-type strictures, percutaneous drainage proved to be safer and more effective.