Endoscopic sphincterotomy for common bile duct calculi in patients without stones in the gallbladder

Endoscopic sphincterotomy (ES) was performed in 25 patients for common bile duct (CBD) calculi in the absence of stones in the gallbladder. Eighteen of these patients were considered unfit for surgery because of age or concomitant disease. All ES procedures were technically successful with complete evacuation of the CBD in all cases. Early complications occurred in only one patient, a 91-year-old female who died from nonbiliary tract disease. Long-term follow up over a period of 42 months was available in 19 of the 24 patients. Late complications occurred in two patients (10%), both of whom developed cholecystitis; they underwent surgery without subsequent morbidity or mortality. This 10% incidence of long-term complications is similar to that of other series that did not differentiate between patients with isolated CBD calculi and those with stones also present in the gallbladder. The observed complication rate does not justify routine prophylactic cholecystectomy after ES for isolated CBD stones.     

Endoscopic sphincterotomy and mechanical basket lithotripsy for management of difficult common bile duct stones

Endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) for removal of stones is a major therapeutic advance in the management of choledocholithiasis. However, this technique, using a standard Dormia basket or balloon catheters, often fails with large stones (exceeding 15mm in diameter). Mechanical basket lithotripsy (MBL) has been developed to overcome this deficiency. With recently improved devices, consisting of an entirely, i.e., one self-contained system which can be used without removing the endoscope, the overall efficacy of stone removal is more than 93%, regardless of the size of the stones. This MBL is a simple, safe, effective and inexpensive procedure in experienced hands and has emerged as the procedure of choice for endoscopic management of difficult stones.     

Comparison between endoscopic papillary balloon dilatation and endoscopic sphincterotomy for the treatment of common bile duct stones

Background This study was designed to evaluate the therapeutic outcome and early postoperative complications, especially pancreatitis, of endoscopic papillary balloon dilation (EPBD) and endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) in patients with common bile duct stones in our department. Methods One hundred eighty patients with common bile duct stones were randomized to undergo EPBD or EST. An 8-mm dilatation balloon was used for EPBD. Modified Cotton's criteria, in which relatively mild pancreatitis is also included as a complication, were used to determine the incidence of postoperative complications. Results The rate of complete removal of stones was significantly higher in the EST group (95.6%) than in the EPBD group (86.6%); for stones less than 10 mm in diameter, however, the rate with EPBD (93.8%) was almost equivalent to that with EST (98.1%). According to modified Cotton's criteria, the incidence of postoperative pancreatitis was significantly higher in the EPBD group (16.7%) than in the EST group (6.7%). Bleeding was encountered in one patient (1.1%) in the EST group, but in none in the EPBD group. No fatal complication occurred in either the EPBD or the EST group. Conclusions Although EPBD appears to be comparable to EST for removal of small common bile duct stones, mild postoperative pancreatitis is more likely to occur with EPBD than with EST.     

内镜下十二指肠乳头小切开后球囊扩张术治疗胆总管结石的临床研究

目的探讨内镜下十二指肠乳头括约肌小切开后球囊扩张术在胆总管结石治疗中的有效性和安全性。方法将150例临床确诊为胆总管结石的患者随机分为乳头括约肌切开组(EST组)和乳头括约肌小切开后球囊扩张术组(SEST+EPBD组),比较两组疗效及并发症的发生率。结果 EST组和SEST+EPBD组取石成功率分别为92%和97%(χ2=1.19,P0.05)。EST组术后出现急性胰腺炎2例,出血4例,结石复发11例,逆行性胆道感染15例。SEST+EPBD组术后出现急性胰腺炎1例,出血1例,结石复发2例,逆行性胆道感染6例。两组取石成功率及近期并发症比较差异无统计学意义(P0.05),远期并发症比较差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。结论内镜下乳头括约肌小切开后球囊扩张术治疗胆总管结石安全、有效,并发症少,并且尽可能的保留了十二指肠乳头括约肌的功能,值得临床推广。     

内镜下乳头小切开加球囊扩张术治疗胆总管大结石80例

目的:探讨内镜下乳头小切开加球囊扩张术治疗胆总管大结石的有效性和安全性.方法:2010-01/2011-10我院消化内科住院行内镜下取石的胆总管结石直径>1.2cm的患者,随机分为内镜下乳头括约肌切开术(EST)组及内镜下乳头小切开加球囊扩张术(ESBD)组,每组40例.ESBD组在先行乳头小切开后行乳头球囊扩张;EST组按常规操作.结果:EST组及ESBD组分别有36例(90%)及38例(95%)成功取净结石;机械碎石网篮应用比例分别37.5%(15/40)和10%(4/40),P<0.05;取石时间分别为41.78min±10.41min和36.28min±8.64min,P<0.05;术中EST组有2例出现切开后出血,ESBD组无出血病例;EST组各有1例出现发热和腹痛患者,有2例出现胰腺炎,ESBD组有2例腹痛,无发热患者,1例出现胰腺炎.术后早期并发症总发生率分别为10%(4/40)和7.5%(3/40),P>0.05;无死亡病例.结论:对较大胆总管结石,ESBD取石有与EST取石相近的成功率,术后并发症无明显升高,但在操作时间及碎石网篮使用上,ESBD组更有优势.     

Laparoscopic management of common bile duct stones

We reviewed our experience with the management of common bile duct (CBD) stones in 100 consecutive patients treated laparoscopicaly during the past 9 years (1990—1998) and evaluated the advantages, disadvantages, and feasibility of the treatment, to elucidate reasonable therapeutic strategies for patients harboring CBD stones. We conclude that the most rational management of CBD stones is that which is decided according to the size of the CBD, which, in turn, depends on the size, number, and location of stones. The cystic duct in patients with a non‐dilated CBD is narrow, because the size of the CBD depends on the size and number of stones that have migrated through the narrow cystic duct, and the stones in the non‐dilated CBD are therefore usually small in size and number. Patients with a dilated CBD, however, are good candidates to undergo single‐stage laparoscopic treatment. In our Department, therefore, even if complete removal of stones has failed in patients with non‐dilated CBD, further choledochotomy is not carried out, and a C‐tube is placed through the cystic duct for a subsequent postoperative transduodenal approach, because laparoscopic transcystic CBD exploration and choledochotomy may not be always feasible in those patients with non‐dilated CBD, and spontaneous migration of small stones into the duodenum is frequently noted. In fact, some stones demonstrated on intraoperative cholangiograms were not revealed by postoperative cholangiography. In contrast, retained stones detected postoperatively were successfully removed by postoperative endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST), the endoscopic papillary balloon dilatation technique (EPBDT), or postoperative cholangioscopy (POCS) without any injury to the sphinter of Oddi. With this approach, we believe that the causes of stone recurrence can be avoided in the majority of cases.     

Comparing the treatment outcomes of endoscopic papillary dilation and endoscopic sphincterotomy for removal of bile duct stones

To compare the clinical usefulness of endoscopic papillary dilation (EPD) and endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) for removal of bile duct stones, 110 patients with stones up to 15 mm in diameter and less than 10 in number were randomly treated with either EPD (55 patients) or EST (55 patients). The patients were followed up for a median period of 23 months and endoscopic manometry with the administration of morphine was carried out in 17 patients who were observed more than 12 months after the procedures to evaluate the post-procedure papillary function. Duct clearance was achieved in 51 EPD (92.7%) and 54 EST patients (98.1%, not significantly different). Forty EPD (78.4%) and 51 EST patients (94.4%) achieved duct clearance in the initial procedure (P=0.02). Early complications occurred in one EPD (2.0%) and in three EST patients (5.6%, P=0.62). Complications during the follow-up period occurred in two EPD and eight EST patients. Recurrence of bile duct stones was observed in two EPD and three EST patients (P=0.98). Acute cholecystitis was observed in one EPD and five EST patients (P=0.06) and among patients with gall-bladder stones in situ, the rate of acute cholecystitis after EPD was significantly lower than that after EST (P=0.03). Endoscopic manometry showed the existence of a choledochoduodenal pressure gradient only after EPD, while papillary contractile function was observed after both procedures. In conclusion, both EPD and EST are safe therapeutic modalities, although EPD is more clinically effective in decreasing the risk of acute cholecystitis in patients with gall-bladder stones in situ and in preserving post-procedure papillary function.     

内镜下乳头括约肌小切开联合气囊扩张术在胆总管结石治疗中的应用价值

目的探讨内镜下乳头括约肌小切开联合气囊扩张术在胆总管结石治疗中的效果和安全性。方法选取胆总管结石患者46例行乳头括约肌小切开联合气囊扩张术取石,观察治愈率,近期、远期并发症。结果取石成功率为95.7%;近期并发症发生率为6.5%,其中急性胰腺炎1例,胆管炎2例,远期并发症发生率为4.4%,反流性胆管炎、结石复发各1例。结论内镜下乳头括约肌小切开联合气囊扩张术治疗胆总管结石,与乳头括约肌切开取石术同样有效,且安全性更好,操作更简单。     

Endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation vs endoscopic sphincterotomy for retrieval of common bile duct stones:A meta-analysis

AIM:To compare the efficacy and safety of endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation(EPLBD)with endoscopic sphincterotomy(EST)in retrieval of common bile duct stones(≥10 mm).METHODS:PubMed,Web of Knowledge,EBSCO,the Cochrane Library,and EMBASE were searched for eligible studies.Randomized controlled trials(RCTs)that compared EPLBD with EST were identified.Data extraction and quality assessment were performed by two independent reviewers using the same criteria.Any disagreement was discussed with a third reviewer until a final consensus was reached.Pooled outcomes of complete bile duct stone clearance,stone clearance in one session,requirement for mechanical lithotripsy,and overall complication rate were determined using relative risk and 95%CI.The separate post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography complications were pooled and determined with the Peto odds ratio and95%CI because of the small number of events.Heterogeneity was evaluated with the chi-squared test with P≤0.1 and I2 with a cutoff of≥50%.A fixed effects model was used primarily.A random effects model was applied when significant heterogeneity was detected.Sensitivity analysis was applied to explore the potential bias.RESULTS:Five randomized controlled trials with 621participants were included.EPLBD compared with EST had similar outcomes with regard to complete stone removal rate(93.7%vs 92.5%,P=0.54)and complete duct clearance in one session(82.2%vs 77.7%,P=0.17).Mechanical lithotripsy was performed less in EPLBD in the retrieval of whole stones(15.5%vs25.2%,P=0.003),as well as in the stratified subgroup of stones larger than 15 mm(24.2%vs 40%,P=0.001).There was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of overall adverse events(7.9%vs 10.7%,P=0.25),post-ERCP pancreatitis(4.0%vs 5.0%,P=0.54),hemorrhage(1.7%vs 2.8%,P=0.32),perforation(0.3%vs 0.9%,P=0.35)or acute cholangitis(1.3%vs 1.3%,P=0.92).CONCLUSION:EPLBD could be advocated as an alternative to EST in the retrieval of large common bile duct stones.     

Endoscopic sphincterotomy for common bile duct stones: Impact of recent technical advances

Technical improvements, such as mechanical lithotripsy, stenting or nasobiliary drainage, and wire-guided cannulation, have reduced the risk of complications in endoscopic sphincterotomy. To determine the extent of this reduction in risk, we assessed the medical records of 1352 patients with common bile duct stones in whom the procedure was conducted. Complications examined were: acute cholangitis and pancreatitis. Stone clearance was achieved in 1256 patients (92.8%), with an overall morbidity rate of 7.7% and a mortality rate of 0.15%. One hundred and forty-two patients had stones with a diameter greater than 20mm; 97 of these patients did not undergo lithotripsy. Cholangitis occurred in 10 of these 97 patients (10.3%), whereas, in the 45 patients who underwent lithotripsy, there were no cases of cholangitis (P=0.02). Stone removal was not immediately accomplished or attempted in 396 patients. In 82 of these patients in whom a stent or a nasobiliary drain was placed in the common bile duct, the incidence of cholangitis was 1.2%, significantly less (P=0.045) than the incidence of 6.4% in the other 314 patients given no stenting or nasobiliary drain. To overcome difficult cannulation, precut sphincterotomy was conducted in 134 patients and wireguided sphincterotomy, a recently introduced procedure, was conducted in 55 patients. When the precutting technique was used, the incidence of acute pancreatitis was significantly higher (8/134; 6.0%) than that in the patients in whom the standard procedure was conducted, i.e., neither the precut technique nor wire-guided ES was used (23/1218; 1.9%) (P=0.008). There were no cases of pancreatitis in the 55 patients in whom wire-guided sphincterotomy was performed, although the difference was not statistically significant because of the small number of patients (P=0.06). Based on these findings, we conclude that improved technologies have led to a significant reduction of complications in endoscopic sphincterotomy.     

Endoscopic papillary balloon intermittent dilatation and endoscopic sphincterotomy for bile duct stones

AIM: To compare the effectiveness and safety of endoscopic papillary balloon intermittent dilatation (EPBID) and endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) in the treatment of common bile duct stones. METHODS: From March 2011 to May 2012, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography was performed in 560 patients, 262 with common bile duct stones. A total of 206 patients with common bile duct stones were enrolled in the study and randomized to receive either EPBID with a 10-12 mm dilated balloon or EST (103 patients in each group). For both groups a conventional reticular basket or balloon was used to remove the stones. After the procedure, routine endoscopic nasobiliary drainage was performed. RESULTS: First-time stone removal was successfully performed in 94 patients in the EPBID group (91.3%) and 75 patients in the EST group (72.8%). There was no statistically significant difference in terms of operation time between the two groups. The overall incidence of early complications in the EPBID and EST groups was 2.9% and 13.6%, respectively, with no deaths reported during the course of the study and follow-up. Multiple regression analysis showed that the success rate of stone removal was associated with stone removal method [odds ratio (OR): 5.35; 95%CI: 2.24-12.77; P=0.00], the transverse diameter of the stone (OR: 2.63; 95%CI: 1.19-5.80; P=0.02) and the presence or absence of diverticulum (OR: 2.35; 95%CI: 1.03-5.37; P=0.04). Postoperative pancreatitis was associated with the EST method of stone removal (OR: 5.00; 95%CI: 1.23-20.28; P=0.02) and whether or not pancreatography was performed (OR: 0.10; 95%CI: 0.03-0.35; P=0.00). CONCLUSION: The EPBID group had a higher success rate of stone removal with a lower incidence of pancreatitis compared with the EST group.     

Evolution of endoscopic sphincterotomy

Endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) is a non-surgical treatment for residual or relapsing common bile duct stones in patients with a history of cholecystectomy and/or choledochotomy. Indications for its use have gradually expanded and now include removal of choledochal stones prior to cholecystectomy and removal of large bile duct stones not originally considered suitable for endoscopic removal. EST is used world wide and it now plays an indispensable role in transpapillary diagnostic and therapeutic procedures such as insertion of thin caliber endoscopes into the biliopancreatic system and inserstion of endoprostheses for malignant biliary obstruction. However, some, doubts have been voiced about the extension of indications for EST. The problem of loss of function of the duodenal papilla, for example, is controversial. We summarize the circumstances surrounding the development of EST, the controversies that have occurred in the process of expanding EST indications, and the history of overcoming the technological problems with transpapillary endoscopic procedures. The importance of conducting well-controlled clinical trials to determine the usefulness of new techniques is discussed.     

Comprehensive review on small common bile duct stones

Common bile duct stones are among the most common conditions encountered by endoscopists. Therefore, it is well researched; however, some items, such as indications for endoscopic papillary balloon dilatation(EPBD), safety of EPBD and endoscopic sphincterotomy in patients receiving dual antiplatelet therapy or direct oral anticoagulant, selection strategy for retrieval balloons and baskets, lack adequate evidence. Therefore, the guidelines have been updated with new research, while others remain...     

Endoscopic balloon dilatation is a safe method in the management of common bile duct stones

BACKGROUNDS AND AIMS: Endoscopic sphincterotomy is a widely accepted treatment for patients with common bile duct stones. Despite improvement in this technique, endoscopic sphincterotomy is still associated with some biliary complications. Endoscopic balloon dilatation is a less traumatic and sphincter preserving method for removal of common bile duct stones. However, the results of controlled studies in comparison with these two methods are contradictory. The aim of this study is to compare the safety and efficacy of endoscopic balloon dilatation and endoscopic sphincterotomy in Chinese patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 104 patients with common bile duct stones on endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography were enrolled. They were randomly assigned to endoscopic balloon dilatation or endoscopic sphincterotomy. Endoscopic balloon dilatation was performed by using a balloon dilator to dilate the sphincter for 5 min. The common bile duct stones were then removed by a Dormia basket after endoscopic balloon dilatation or endoscopic sphincterotomy. Mechanical lithotripsy was performed if the stones were difficult to remove by Dormia basket. After discharge, patients were regularly followed up for biliary complications. RESULTS: The successful bile duct stone clearance rate was 94.1% in endoscopic balloon dilatation group and 100% in endoscopic sphincterotomy group. Post-procedural significant haemorrhage was higher in endoscopic sphincterotomy group than in endoscopic balloon dilatation group (14/53 versus 1/48, P < 0.001). The bleeding patient from endoscopic balloon dilatation group was a case of uremia and bleeding occurred 48 h after endoscopic balloon dilatation. All the patients with post-procedural haemorrhage were controlled endoscopically. The post-procedural serum amylase level showed no significant difference in both groups and none of them developed clinical pancreatitis. After a mean 16 months follow-up, three patients (6.3%) in endoscopic balloon dilatation group and four patients (7.5%) in endoscopic sphincterotomy group developed recurrent common bile duct stones. The recurrent common bile duct stones were multiple and muddy in consistency. They were successfully removed endoscopically. CONCLUSION: Both endoscopic balloon dilatation and endoscopic sphincterotomy are safe and effective techniques for the treatment of common bile duct stones. Endoscopic balloon dilatation can be safely applied in patients with coagulopathy and does not increase the incidence of pancreatitis or bleeding.     

Management of common bile duct stones: controversies and future perspectives

BACKGROUND: The advent of endoscopic and minimally invasive techniques for diagnosis and treatment has revolutionised the management of bile duct stones. Yet several controversies still surround the optimal means of investigation and treatment. DISCUSSION: Scoring systems that classify patients according to their risk of harbouring bile duct stones are likely to decrease the number of unnecessary preoperative endoscopic cholangiopancreatograms (ERCPs) at the expense of a higher rate of positive intra-operative diagnosis, unless magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) is used to supplement the clinical information. The current treatment that is generally preferred for patients with a high probability of bile duct stones is ERCP followed by laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC), but the routine use of ERCP in this context has certain limitations. An alternative approach is offered by carrying out the necessary cholangiogram during LC. Laparoscopic choledochotomy requires technical skill and costly equipment and should usually be followed by T-tube drainage of the duct. A recent survey in Spain has shown that most surgeons prefer ERCP plus LC, but one recent randomised controlled trial showed advantages for the single-stage laparoscopic treatment of bile duct stones in terms of a shorter hospital stay; success rates and complication rates were similar for the two procedures. The authors support the consensus statement that the choice of diagnostic and therapeutic strategy should depend on local circumstances and available expertise.     

Endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation for large common bile duct stones

Endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation (EPLBD) involves endoscopic biliary sphincterotomy (EBS) followed by balloon dilation using a 12–20-mm balloon to remove large or difficult stones from the common bile duct. The complications and limitations of endoscopic biliary sphincterotomy (EBS) are well known. Endoscopic papillary balloon dilation (EPBD) with a smaller diameter balloon but without sphincterotomy is widely used in a number of regions of the world for removal of routine bile duct stones and has been investigated as an alternative to EBS. EPBD, however, appears to be associated with an increased risk of pancreatitis. EPLBD differs from EPBD as it involves EBS followed by large balloon dilation. EPLBD would theoretically combine advantages of sphincterotomy and balloon dilation by increasing efficacy at stone extraction while minimizing complications of both EBS and EBD. A review of the available literature for EPBLD shows that it is relatively safe and effective. A high success rate (up to 95%) has been described for stone removal using EPLBD, with a low complication rate. Unlike EPBD, EBLBD does not appear to be associated with a higher risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis, probably because of separation of the biliary and pancreatic sphincters after EBS. EPLBD appears to be a reasonable option for removal of large or difficult common bile duct stones. This technique may be especially helpful in patients with difficult papillary anatomy, such as those with small papillae, intra- or peri-diverticular papilla. Its role in patients with coagulopathy or other risks for bleeding remains to be investigated.     

Endoscopic sphincter dilation in patients with bile duct stones: Immediate and medium-term results

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic sphincter dilation (ESD) is believed to successfully treat bile duct stones without serious procedure-related complications. METHODS: We evaluated the efficacy, safety and limitations of this relatively new procedure in a consecutive series of patients to establish the clinical role of this modality for treating bile duct stones. One hundred and forty-three consecutive patients were treated by ESD between July 1995 and March 1998. The balloons used were a Maxforce 5-Fr or Olbert 5-Fr balloon-tipped catheter with a maximal diameter of 8 mm. Mechanical lithotriptor (ML) or extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) were used when stones were large and/or numerous and a Dormia basket or retrievable balloon catheter was used to extract the stones entirely. Procedure-related symptoms and chemical data after the procedure were monitored during and after ESD at least until the following morning. To diagnose residual stones accurately, intraductal ultrasonography was routinely used. RESULTS: Although the majority of patients complained of subtle pain during balloon inflation and demonstrated oozing during and after balloon inflation, the procedures were well tolerated. Complete stone extraction was achieved in 139 (97.2%) of the patients. Mechanical lithotriptor and ESWL were used to assist stone clearance in 79 (55.2%) and 23 (16.1%) patients, respectively. Mild pancreatitis occurred in six patients (4.2%). However, there were no other serious complications. Stone recurrence was identified in six patients and these stones were re-extracted by subsequent ESD procedures. CONCLUSIONS: A high success rate for stone extraction and the relative safety of this procedure was confirmed. However, there was recurrence in a relatively high percentage of patients within a short period and this may be a forthcoming issue in ESD. Long-term follow-up observation and the establishment of countermeasures for stone recurrence seem to be essential.