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.     

Comparison of endoscopic papillary balloon dilatation and endoscopic sphincterotomy for bile duct stones

Endoscopic treatment for bile duct stones is low-invasive and currently considered as the first choice of the treatment. For the treatment of bile duct stones, papillary treatment is necessary, and the treatments used at the time are broadly classified into two types; endoscopic papillary balloon dilatation where bile duct closing part is dilated with a balloon and endoscopic sphincterotomy(EST) where bile duct closing part is incised. Both procedures have advantages and disadvantages. Golden standard is EST, however, there are patients with difficulty for EST, thus we must select the procedure based on understanding of the characteristics of the procedure, and patient backgrounds.     

内镜下局限性乳头括约肌切开联合大气囊扩张清除难治性胆总管结石:单中心169例经验总结

背景:近年内镜下乳头括约肌切开(EST)联合内镜下乳头大气囊扩张(EPLBD)越来越多地应用于胆总管大结石或难治性结石的清除。目的:评价局限性EST联合EPLBD用于清除直径≥10 mm胆总管结石的有效性和安全性。方法:收集2006年4月~2011年10月东方肝胆外科医院行内镜下取石术的患者,结石直径≥10 mm,取石方法为局限性EST联合EPLBD(气囊直径≥12 mm)。分析入选病例的临床资料、内镜操作及其结果。结果:共169例患者行171例次取石,平均年龄69.3岁(19~97岁),结石直径和气囊直径中位数分别为15 mm和13 mm。结石一次性清除163例次(95.3%),使用机械碎石(ML)66例次(38.6%),且ML使用率随结石直径增大而升高(P0.01)。伴有乳头旁憩室患者与不伴乳头旁憩室患者的结石清除率(97.3%对93.8%)、ML使用率(36.5%对40.2%)和并发症发生率(2.7%对6.2%)均无明显差异(P均0.05)。7例患者共发生8例次并发症,包括轻度或中度出血4例次、微小穿孔1例次,轻度胰腺炎2例次,胆管炎1例次。结论:局限性EST联合EPLBD用于清除胆总管大结石是有效、安全的,尤其是对难治性结石患者。     

Endoscopic pancreatic and biliary manometry in pancreatic, biliary, and papillary disease, and after endoscopic sphincterotomy and surgical sphincteroplasty.

Endoscopic manometry was used to measure pancreatic duct, common bile duct, pancreatic duct sphincter and bile duct sphincter pressures in 43 healthy volunteers and 162 patients with a variety of papillary, pancreatic and biliary disorders. Common bile duct pressure was significantly raised after cholecystectomy, with common bile duct stones and papillary stenosis but pancreatic duct pressure only in papillary stenosis. After endoscopic sphincterotomy mean common bile duct pressure fell from 11.2 to 1.1 mmHg and pancreatic duct pressure from 18.0 to 11.2 mmHg. Distinct pancreatic duct sphincter and bile duct sphincter zones were identified as phasic pressures of 3-12 waves/minute on pull-through from pancreatic duct and common bile duct to duodenum. Pancreatic duct sphincter pressures were higher with common bile duct stones and stenosis whereas bile duct sphincter pressures were higher in pancreatitis and stenosis. Bile duct sphincter activity was present in 60% of patients after surgical sphincteroplasty but 21% of patients after endoscopic sphincterotomy. Endoscopic manometry facilitated the diagnosis of papillary stenosis, has allowed study of papillary pathophysiology and has shown a functional inter-relationship between the two sphincteric zones.     

What is an appropriate indication for endoscopic papillary balloon dilation?

OBJECTIVE: There are a number of views on the indication for endoscopic papillary balloon dilation (EPBD) in the management of bile duct stones. In this study, we have evaluated the efficacy and safety of EPBD compared with endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST). DESIGN: Prospective randomized trial. SETTING: One university hospital and one general hospital. PARTICIPANTS AND MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: One hundred and forty patients were randomly allocated to EPBD or EST. Outcomes and complications were observed for a median period of 30 months. RESULTS: Both treatment approaches finally achieved similar success rates and needed similar numbers of treatment sessions for patients with stones less than 10 mm in diameter. However, for patients with stones of 10 mm or more, EPBD required a significantly greater mean number of treatment sessions than EST (2.4 vs 1.6, P < 0.01). Early complications occurred in seven EPBD (four pancreatitis, two cholangitis and one basket impaction) and eight EST (three pancreatitis, two bleeding and three cholangitis) patients. Late complications occurred in four EPBD (three recurrent bile duct stones and one cholecystitis) and six EST (three recurrent stones and three cholecystitis) patients. CONCLUSIONS: EPBD has little risk of bleeding. The technique removed small bile duct stones just as easily as did EST. These two procedures had approximately the same risk of pancreatitis and incidence of recurrent bile duct stones. Therefore, both procedures appear to be appropriate treatments for small bile duct stones. Whether or not EPBD becomes an established treatment will depend on further long-term studies.     

内镜下乳头球囊扩张术和乳头括约肌切开术治疗胆总管结石的比较

目的 探讨内镜下乳头球囊扩张术(EPBD)治疗胆总管结石的有效性和安全性.方法 2005年6月至2007年5月山东大学齐鲁医院320例拟行内镜下取石的胆总管结石患者,随机分为EPBD组及内镜下乳头括约肌切开术(EST)组,每组160例.EPBD组在乳头球囊扩张后用取石网篮或气囊取石,当结石较大时先行机械碎石网篮碎石后再取石;EST组按常规操作.两组术后均常规鼻胆管引流3 d,并造影复查.结果 EST组及EPBD组分别有156例(97.5%)及157例(98.1%)成功取净结石,其中各有112例(70.0%)及104例(65.0%)一次完成;机械碎石网篮应用比例分别为20.0%(32/160)和22.5%(36/160);术后早期并发症的总发生率分别为5.6%及8.1%,无死亡病例.随访3年,EST组胆管结石复发率(7.5%)高于EPBD组(2.5%),P＜0.05.结论 EPBD取石具有与EST取石相近的成功率,经术后常规鼻胆管引流处理后,胰腺炎发生率无明显升高.EPBD可以作为胆总管结石的备选治疗措施,尤其是对不适于EST的患者.

Abstract：

Objective To explore the effectiveness and safety of endoscopic papillary balloon dilation( EPBD ) for the removal of common bile duct stones. Methods Three hundred and twenty consecutive patients with common bile duct stones on endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) who met all eligibility criteria were randomly assigned endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) or EPBD.Complications were classified by an expert panel unaware of treatment allocation and outcome. Results After a single ERCP, all stones were removed from 112 patients ( 70% ) assigned EST and 104 ( 65% )assigned EPBD. Mechanical lithotripsy was used to fragment stones in 36 (22. 5% ) EPBD procedures and 32 ( 20. 0% ) EST procedures. Early complications occurred in 5.6% EST patients and 8.1% EPBD patients. No patient died. Gallstone disease recurrence, which is a long-term complication, is 7. 5% ( 12/160) in EST patients and 2.5% (4/160) in EPBD patients, P ＜0. 05. Conclusions The success rate of EPBD was similar to that of EST. We found no evidence of previously suggested higher risk of pancreatitis with EPBD, and suggest that EPBD is preferred in patients who are not suitable for EST, such as those with high risk of bleeding. This procedure is a valuable alternative to EST in patients with bile duct stones.     

Can endoscopic papillary balloon dilation really preserve sphincter of Oddi function?

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic papillary balloon dilation (EPBD) is assumed to preserve sphincter of Oddi function because it causes little trauma to the papilla. However, few studies have addressed this issue specifically. In this study, we investigated whether EPBD can preserve sphincter function, and evaluated whether or not such preservation has clinical significance. METHODS: Seventy patients with common bile duct (CBD) stones were randomly assigned to EPBD or endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST). Sphincter of Oddi (SO) function was measured by endoscopic manometry before, one week after, and one year after treatment. Incidence of pneumobilia and later complications were compared between the two groups at one year. Series manometric data were compared within each group and between the two groups. For a more detailed analysis of the cumulative incidence of later complications, retrospective cohorts were added to the study groups, giving a total number of 235 patients in the EPBD group and 126 in the EST group. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics did not differ significantly between the 35 EPBD and 35 EST patients. CBD stones were discharged successfully in all cases. CBD pressure, SO basal and peak pressures, and contraction frequency decreased significantly at one week in both groups. The damage was more severe in the EST group, and SO contraction completely disappeared in 23 patients in this group. The incidence of pneumobilia was significantly lower in the EPBD group than in the EST group (p<0.01) whereas CBD stones recurred and cholecystitis appeared at a similar rate in both groups at one year. A complete series of manometric data up to one year was obtained in 55 patients; 28 in the post-EPBD and 27 in post-EST groups. In the post-EPBD group, SO basal and peak pressures significantly recovered at one year compared with data at one week but these measures still remained significantly lower than those before EPBD (p< 0.01). In the post-EST group, SO contraction did not recover even after one year. A Kaplan-Meier analysis of 235 EPBD and 126 EST patients for a median follow up of 37 months revealed significantly lower incidences of biliary complications such as recurrent CBD stones and cholangitis, and cholecystitis in the EPBD group than in the EST group (p<0.05). The risk of pneumobilia was also significantly lower in the EPBD group (p<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Preservation of papillary function after EPBD was not complete but remained somewhat reduced. However, preservation was more successful with EPBD than with EST. Such preservation may be clinically beneficial for the prevention of later complications.     

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.     

Reappraisal of endoscopic papillary balloon dilation for the management of common bile duct stones

Although endoscopic sphincterotomy(EST) is still considered as a gold standard treatment for common bile duct(CBD) stones in western guideline, endoscopic papillary balloon dilation(EPBD) is commonly used by the endoscopists in Asia as the first-line treatment for CBD stones. Besides the advantages of a technical easy procedure, endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation(EPLBD) can facilitate the removal of large CBD stones.The indication of EPBD is now extended from removal of the small stones by using traditional balloon, to removal of large stones and avoidance of lithotripsy by using large balloon alone or after EST. According to the reports of antegrade papillary balloon dilatation, balloon dilation itself is not the cause of pancreatitis. On the contrary, adequate dilation of papillary orifice can reduce the trauma to the papilla and pancreas by the basket or lithotripter during the procedure of stone extraction. EPLBD alone is as effective as EPLBD with limited EST. Longer ballooning time may be beneficial in EPLBD alone to achieve adequate loosening of papillary orifice. The longer ballooning time does not increase the risk of pancreatitis but may reduce the bleeding episodes in patients with coagulopathy. Slowly inflation of the balloon, but not exceed the diameter of bile duct and tolerance of the patients are important to prevent the complication of perforation. EPBLD alone or with EST are not the sphincter preserved procedures, regular follow up is necessary for early detection and management of CBD stones recurrence.     

十二指肠镜2种方法治疗胆管结石的比较

目的比较分析内镜下十二指肠乳头括约肌切开术（EST）和十二指肠乳头球囊扩张术（EPBD）治疗胆总管结石的临床疗效。方法选取河池市人民医院及右江民族医学院附属医院2010年3月2011年10月住院治疗的60例胆管结石患者,其中38例进行EST治疗,22例进行EPBD治疗．比较两组的疗效及并发症的发生率。结果EST组术后结石取净率为94．74％,EPBD组为95．45％．两者比较差异无统计学意义（x2=0．015,P〉0．05）;EST组近期并发症的发生率为5．56％明显低于EPBD组的23．80％（X2=4．102,P〈0．05）;EPBD组胰腺炎的发生率为19．04％明显高于EST组的2．78％（X2=4．387,P〈0．05）。EST组远期并发症的发生率为19．4％,而EPBD组未出现远期并发症,二者有显著性差异（x2=4．655,P〈0．05）。结论EST术和EPBD术治疗胆总管结石的结石清除率接近,但EST的并发症特别是术后胰腺炎的发生率较低,而EPBD的远期并发症较低,说明两种方法各有利弊,但均安全有效,临床应根据患者结石数目和结石大小选择适合的手术方式。     

How Should Biliary Stones be Managed?

Minimally invasive therapy is currently invaluable for the treatment of biliary stones. Clinicians should be familiar with the various endoscopic modalities that have been evolving. I reviewed the treatment of biliary stones from the common practice to pioneering procedures, and here I also briefly summarize the results of many related studies. Lithotripsy involves procedures that fragment large stones, and they can be roughly classified into two groups: intracorporeal modalities and extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy (ESWL). Intracorporeal modalities are further divided into mechanical lithotripsy (ML), electrohydraulic lithotripsy, and laser lithotripsy. ESWL can break stones by focusing high-pressure shock-wave energy at a designated target point. Balloon dilation after minimal endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) is effective for retrieving large biliary stones without the use of ML. Peroral cholangioscopy provides direct visualization of the bile duct and permits diagnostic procedures or therapeutic interventions. Biliary stenting below an impacted stone is sometimes worth considering as an alternative treatment in elderly patients. This article focuses on specialized issues such as lithotripsy rather than simple EST with stone removal in order to provide important information on state-of-the-art procedures.     

内镜下十二指肠乳头括约肌小切开术联合球囊扩张术治疗胆管结石的疗效观察

目的 探讨内镜下乳头括约肌小切开术（smallendoscopicsphincterotomy,SEST）联合球囊扩张术（endo—scopicpapillaryballoondilatation,EPBD）治疗胆管结石的远期疗效和并发症。方法选择青岛市海慈医疗集团消化内科2009年3月至2011年12月住院治疗的127例结石直径〉10mm的胆管结石患者,随机分为4组,SEST＋EPBD组33例,先行乳头括约肌小切开（切开范围小于乳头肌三分之一）,然后球囊扩张,再碎石取石;EPBD＋SEST组32例,先行球囊扩张术,再行乳头括约肌小切开,再碎石取石;EST组32例,仅行十二指肠乳头括约肌大切开（切开范围大于乳头肌三分之二）取石;EPBD组30例,仅行球囊扩张碎石取石。比较4组的疗效和并发症发生率。结果SEST＋EPBD组术后结石取净率为93．93％（31／33）,EPBD＋SEST组为93．75％（30／32）,EST组为96．77％（30／31）,EPBD组为66．67％（20／30）,EPBD组与其他三组比较差异有统计学意义（P〈0．05）;SEST＋EPBD组和EPBD＋SEST组均无远期并发症发生,EST组远期并发症发生率为16．67％,EPBD组为3．57％,EST组与其他三组比较有显著性差异（P〈0．05）。结论SEST与EPBD联合治疗胆管结石安全有效,可有效降低经内镜治疗胆管结石的远期并发症发生率,提高胆管结石患者术后的生活质量。     

经内镜乳头括约肌切开术与气囊扩张术治疗胆总管结石临床评价

目的:评价经内镜乳头括约肌切开术(EST)和气囊扩张术(EPBD)联合机械碎石(EML)治疗胆总管结石的临床疗效．方法:选取我院住院胆总管结石患者60例,随机分成EST组(n=30)和EPBD组(n=30),分别采用EST和EPBD联合机械碎石进行内镜下取石．观察二组的治愈率,近期并发症、远期并发症．结果:正结果EST组与EPBD组的取石成功率为93．3％和90％．无显著性差异(P>0．05): 两组近期并发症发生率(包括胰腺炎、胆道感染、出血)为30％和13．3％,无显著性差异 (P>0．05);而远期并发症(包括胆道感染、结石复发)26．7％和3.3％,有显著性差异(P<0．05)．结论:EST和EPBD的结石清除率及近期并发症相似,但EPBD远期并发症的发病率较低, 表明EPBD能够在一定程度上保护Oddi括约肌功能。     

核素显像和胆道造影观察经内镜乳头括约肌切开术前后胆道机能形态的变化

目的探讨经内镜乳头括约肌切开术（ＥＳＴ）对胆道机能形态的影响。方法应用肝胆动态显像和胆道造影,分别比较８例ＥＳＴ前后胆管胆汁排出及胆总管直径改变情况。结果肝胆动态显像各指标ＥＳＴ前后有明显改善。胆道造影表明ＥＳＴ前后胆总管直径有明显改变。结论ＥＳＴ明显改善胆汁流出,解除胆道梗阻,使扩张胆管回缩。     

A randomized trial of endoscopic balloon dilation and endoscopic sphincterotomy for removal of bile duct stones in patients with a prior Billroth II gastrectomy

BACKGROUND: A prior Billroth II gastrectomy renders endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) more difficult in patients with bile duct stones. Endoscopic balloon dilation (EBD) is a relatively easy procedure that potentially reduces the risk of bleeding and perforation. METHODS: Thirty-four patients with bile duct stones and a previous Billroth II gastrectomy were randomized to EST or EBD. Complications were graded in a blinded fashion. Results were compared with those for a group of 180 patients with normal anatomy from a previously reported randomized trial of EBD versus EST. RESULTS: All stones were removed in 1 endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in 14 of 16 patients who underwent EBD versus 14 of 18 who had EST (p = 1.00). Mechanical lithotripsy was used in 3 EBD procedures versus 4 EST procedures (p = 1.00). Early complications occurred in 3 patients who had EBD versus 7 who underwent EST (p = 0.27). Three patients had bleeding after EST; 1 patient had mild pancreatitis after EBD. The median time required for stone removal was 30 minutes in both groups. Compared with patients with a normal anatomy, patients with a previous Billroth II gastrectomy had a significantly increased risk of bleeding after EST (17% vs. 2%, relative risk = 7.25, p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: A prior Billroth II gastrectomy renders EST more difficult and increases the risk of a complication. EBD in these patients is easy to perform and is not associated with an increased need for mechanical lithotripsy or a longer procedure time. The risk of bleeding is virtually absent after EBD and the risk of pancreatitis after EBD seems not significantly increased in these patients.     

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.     

Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) for common bile duct stones]

We treated twenty-three patients with common bile duct stones (12 female, 11 male, mean age: 67.1 years) by Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy (ESWL). The stones were focused by ultrasonic or choledochographic localization. The twenty-three patients received 53 ESWL treatments consisting of mean 2357 shocks per treatment at mean 18 kV. We performed ESWL in five cases with endoscopically unextractable common bile duct stones after endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST). In these cases, ESWL permitted stone disintegration and successful endoscopic extraction of the fragments. We performed ESWL in eighteen cases with common bile duct stones without EST. In fifteen of the eighteen cases (83%), fragmentation was achieved. The stone fragments were spontaneously discharged in ten cases (56%) after a median of 4 days following ESWL. In five cases, adjutant endoscopic procedures were performed. The complete fragmentation and the clearance rate for stones of diameter of less than 10 mm were higher than that for stones of diameter of more than 11 mm. In the cases with the stones of diameter of more than 10 mm, there is a very strong possibility that complete clearance is achieved by ESWL alone. No correlation was obtained for the effective results according to pretreatment number of stones. In eight of thirteen cases (62%) with gall bladder stones, complete clearance was achieved without EST. ESWL without EST can be thought as a rational treatment for preserving the function of papilla of Vater in the case of cholecysto-choledocholithiasis.     

Endoscopic papillary balloon dilation and endoscopic sphincterotomy for bile duct stones: long-term outcomes in a prospective randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the long-term outcome of endoscopic papillary balloon dilation for removal of bile duct stones. A randomized trial that compared long-term outcomes after endoscopic papillary balloon dilation and endoscopic sphincterotomy was conducted. METHODS: Thirty-two patients with bile duct stones were randomized to endoscopic papillary balloon dilation or endoscopic sphincterotomy, with 16 patients in each group. Endoscopic papillary balloon dilation was performed by using an 8-mm-diameter balloon; endoscopic sphincterotomy was performed in the standard manner. The success rates for stone removal, as well as the frequency and types of early (<15 days), mid-term (<1 year), and long-term (1-6 years) post-procedure complications were evaluated. RESULTS: The success rates for stone removal and early complication rates were similar for both groups. The frequency of stone recurrence was approximately 4-fold higher in the endoscopic papillary balloon dilation group (25%) vs. the endoscopic sphincterotomy group (6.3%) at mid-term evaluation. However, over the long term, Kaplan-Meier estimated probability of stone recurrence tended to be higher in the endoscopic sphincterotomy group vs. the endoscopic papillary balloon dilation group; recurrent stones were found in, respectively, 26.7% vs. 6.3%. Complications occurred in 7 patients in each group. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term outcome of endoscopic papillary balloon dilation for bile duct stone removal is satisfactory, provided that consideration is given to recurrence of stones by early follow-up evaluation.     

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.