Download PDF
Endoscopy 2019; 51(08): 763-771
DOI: 10.1055/a-0848-8271
Review
© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

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

Shou Quan Dong
1   Department of Gastroenterology, Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, China
2   The Hubei Clinical Center and Key Laboratory of Intestinal and Colorectal Diseases, Wuhan, China
,
Tikka Prabhjot Singh
1   Department of Gastroenterology, Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, China
2   The Hubei Clinical Center and Key Laboratory of Intestinal and Colorectal Diseases, Wuhan, China
,
Qiu Zhao
1   Department of Gastroenterology, Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, China
2   The Hubei Clinical Center and Key Laboratory of Intestinal and Colorectal Diseases, Wuhan, China
,
Juan Juan Li
1   Department of Gastroenterology, Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, China
2   The Hubei Clinical Center and Key Laboratory of Intestinal and Colorectal Diseases, Wuhan, China
,
Hong Ling Wang
1   Department of Gastroenterology, Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, China
2   The Hubei Clinical Center and Key Laboratory of Intestinal and Colorectal Diseases, Wuhan, China
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

submitted 10 October 2017

accepted after revision 15 January 2019

Publication Date:
20 February 2019 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background 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.

Methods 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.

Results 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.

Conclusion 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.

Fig. 1s – 4s, Table 1s – 5s

 

  • References

  • 1 Gurusamy KS, Giljaca V, Takwoingi Y. et al. Ultrasound versus liver function tests for diagnosis of common bile duct stones. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015; CD011548
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 2 Dasari BV, Tan CJ, Gurusamy KS. et al. Surgical versus endoscopic treatment of bile duct stones. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013; CD003327
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 3 Molvar C, Glaenzer B. Choledocholithiasis: evaluation, treatment, and outcomes. Semin Intervent Radiol 2016; 33: 268-276
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 4 Wojtun S, Gil J, Gietka W. et al. Endoscopic sphincterotomy for choledocholithiasis: a prospective single-center study on the short-term and long-term treatment results in 483 patients. Endoscopy 1997; 29: 258-265
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 5 Hammarström LE, Holmin T, Stridbeck H. et al. Long-term follow-up of a prospective randomized study of endoscopic versus surgical treatment of bile duct calculi in patients with gallbladder in situ. Br J Surg 1995; 82: 1516-1521
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 6 Williams EJ, Green J, Beckingham I. et al. British Society of Gastroenterology. Guidelines on the management of common bile duct stones (CBDS). Gut 2008; 57: 1004-1021
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 7 Yang J, Jin H, Gu W. et al. Determinants of long-term complications of endoscopic sphincterotomy are infections and high risk factors of bile duct and not sphincter of Oddi dysfunction. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2015; 27: 412-418
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 8 Staritz M, Ewe K, Meyer zum Buschenfelde KH. Endoscopic papillary dilation (EPD) for the treatment of common bile duct stones and papillary stenosis. Endoscopy 1983; 15: 197-198
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 9 Park CH, Jung JH, Nam E. et al. Comparative efficacy of various endoscopic techniques for the treatment of common bile duct stones: a network meta-analysis. Gastrointest Endosc 2018; 87: 43-57.e10
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 10 Ersoz G, Tekesin O, Ozutemiz AO. et al. Biliary sphincterotomy plus dilation with a large balloon for bile duct stones that are difficult to extract. Gastrointest Endosc 2003; 57: 156-159
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 11 Espinoza-Ríos J, AliagaRamos M, RodríguezBorda J. et al. Sphincterotomy followed by papillary large balloon in the management of cholecolithiasis. Therapeutic success and safety in a Lima-Peru hospital. Rev Gastroenterol Peru 2016; 36: 203-208
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 12 Teoh AY, Cheung FK, Hu B. et al. Randomized trial of endoscopic sphincterotomy with balloon dilation versus endoscopic sphincterotomy alone for removal of bile duct stones. Gastroenterology 2013; 144: 341-345.e1
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 13 Karsenti D, Coron E, Vanbiervliet G. et al. Complete endoscopic sphincterotomy with vs. without large-balloon dilation for the removal of large bile duct stones: randomized multicenter study. Endoscopy 2017; 49: 968-976
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 14 Cotton PB, Lehman G, Vennes J. et al. Endoscopic sphincterotomy complications and their management: an attempt at consensus. Gastrointest Endosc 1991; 37: 383-393
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 15 Guo Y, Lei S, Gong W. et al. A preliminary comparison of endoscopic sphincterotomy, endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation, and combination of the two in endoscopic choledocholithiasis treatment. Med Sci Monit 2015; 21: 2607-2612
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 16 Heo JH, Kang DH, Jung HJ. et al. Endoscopic sphincterotomy plus large-balloon dilation versus endoscopic sphincterotomy for removal of bile-duct stones. Gastrointest Endosc 2007; 66: 720-726
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 17 Stefanidis G, Viazis N, Pleskow D. et al. Large balloon dilation vs. mechanical lithotripsy for the management of large bile duct stones: a prospective randomized study. Am J Gastroenterol 2011; 106: 278-285
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 18 Kim HG, Cheon YK, Cho YD. et al. Small sphincterotomy combined with endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation versus sphincterotomy. World J Gastroenterol 2009; 15: 4298-4304
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 19 Li G, Pang Q, Zhang X. et al. Dilation-assisted stone extraction: an alternative method for removal of common bile duct stones. Dig Dis Sci 2014; 59: 857-864
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 20 Jun Bo Q, Li Hua X, Tian Min C. et al. Small endoscopic sphincterotomy plus large-balloon dilation for removal of large common bile duct stones during ERCP. Pak J Med Sci 2013; 29: 907-912
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 21 Mu H, Gao J, Kong Q. et al. Prognostic factors and postoperative recurrence of calculus following small-incision sphincterotomy with papillary balloon dilation for the treatment of intractable choledocholithiasis: a 72-month follow-up study. Dig Dis Sci 2015; 60: 2144-2149
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 22 Itoi T, Itokawa F, Sofuni A. et al. Endoscopic sphincterotomy combined with large balloon dilation can reduce the procedure time and fluoroscopy time for removal of large bile duct stones. Am J Gastroenterol 2009; 104: 560-565
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 23 Guo SB, Meng H, Duan ZJ. et al. Small sphincterotomy combined with endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation vs sphincterotomy alone for removal of common bile duct stones. World J Gastroenterol 2014; 20: 17962-17969
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 24 Kim KY, Han J, Kim HG. et al. 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. Clin Endosc 2013; 46: 637-642
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 25 Kim TH, Oh HJ, Lee JY. et al. Can a small endoscopic sphincterotomy plus a large-balloon dilation reduce the use of mechanical lithotripsy in patients with large bile duct stones?. Surg Endosc 2011; 25: 3330-3337
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 26 Guidi MA, Curvale C, Hwang HJ. et al. Sphincterotomy plus large balloon dilation versus sphincterotomy alone for the extraction of complex lithiasis: a prospective analysis. Rev Esp Enferm Dig 2015; 107: 483-487
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 27 Tsuchida K, Iwasaki M, Tsubouchi M. et al. Comparison of the usefulness of endoscopic papillary large-balloon dilation with endoscopic sphincterotomy for large and multiple common bile duct stones. BMC Gastroenterol 2015; 15: 59
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 28 Xu XD, Chen B, Dai JJ. et al. Minor endoscopic sphincterotomy followed by large balloon dilation for large choledocholith treatment. World J Gastroenterol 2017; 23: 5739-5745
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 29 Park JS, Kim TN, Kim KH. Endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation for treatment of large bile duct stones does not increase the risk of post-procedure pancreatitis. Dig Dis Sci 2014; 59: 3092-3098
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 30 Rosa B, Moutinho Ribeiro P, Rebelo A. et al. Endoscopic papillary balloon dilation after sphincterotomy for difficult choledocholithiasis: a case-controlled study. World J Gastrointest Endosc 2013; 5: 211-218
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 31 Yang XM, Hu B. Endoscopic sphincterotomy plus large-balloon dilation vs endoscopic sphincterotomy for choledocholithiasis: a meta-analysis. World J Gastroenterol 2013; 19: 9453-9460
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 32 Xu L, Kyaw MH, Tse YK. et al. Endoscopic sphincterotomy with large balloon dilation versus endoscopic sphincterotomy for bile duct stones: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Biomed Res Int 2015; 2015: 673103
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 33 de Clemente Junior CC, Bernardo WM, Franzini TP. et al. 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. World J Gastrointest Endosc 2018; 10: 130-144
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 34 Kuo C-M, Chiu Y-C, Liang C-M. et al. Limited precut sphincterotomy combined with endoscopic papillary balloon dilation for common bile duct stone removal in patients with difficult biliary cannulation. BMC Gastroenterology 2016; 16: 70
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 35 Tsai MC, Wang CC, Wang YT. et al. Major bleeding risk of endoscopic sphincterotomy versus endoscopic papillary balloon dilatation in hemodialysis patients. Saudi J Gastroenterol 2018;
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 36 Shim CS, Kim JW, Lee TY. et al. Is endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation safe for treating large CBD stones?. Saudi J Gastroenterol 2016; 22: 251-259
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar