Search

Background: Endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) is currently recognized as the primary endoscopic treatment for common bile duct stones. However, it is difficult to remove multiple (≥3) or large (≥15 mm) common bile duct stones with EST alone. Recently, EST plus endoscopic papillary large-balloon dilation (EPLBD) was reported to be an effective treatment for such bile duct stones. We compared the results of EST and EST + EPLBD for multiple (≥3) or large (≥15 mm) stones that were difficult to treat using EST alone. We also compared the complication rates between the techniques. Methods: Seventy patients with large (largest diameter, ≥15 mm) or ≥ 3 common bile duct stones treated in our department between April 2010 and March 2013 underwent EST + EPLBD (n = 34) or EST alone (n = 36). We compared final successful stone removal rates, rates of successful stone removal in the first session, procedure times, status of concurrent mechanical lithotripsy (ML), and complications between the EST + EPLBD and EST groups. Results: The rates of final successful stone removal were similar between the two groups (EST + EPLBD: 100 % vs. EST: 89 %; p = 0.115). The rate of successful stone removal in the first session was significantly higher in the EST + EPLBD group (EST + EPLBD: 88 % vs. EST: 56 %; p =0.03).Moreover, theprocedure time was significantly shorter (EST + EPLBD: 42 min vs. EST: 67 min; p = 0.011) and the rate of ML use was significantly lower in the EST + EPLBD group (EST + EPLBD: 50 % vs. EST: 94 %; p < 0.001). Complications like pancreatitis and bleeding occurred in three patients in the EST + EPLBD group and in 10 patients in the EST group, but the differences were not statistically significant (EST + EPLBD: 9 % vs. EST: 25 %; p = 0.112). Conclusions: Our results suggest that EST + EPLBD is an effective therapy for patients with difficult-to-treat multiple or large common bile duct stones, because it requires fewer sessions and shorter operative times than EST alone. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Endoscopic papillary large‐balloon dilation (EPLBD) became popular for the treatment of large common bile‐duct stones (CBDS), and its feasibility has been reported in comparison to endoscopic sphincterotomy. However, the comparison between EPLBD and endoscopic papillary regular‐balloon dilation (EPBD) has not been reported. In the present study, the efficacy and complications of EPLBD were compared with those of EPBD. Methods: We retrospectively assessed 334 consecutive patients with CBDS of any size that were treated by either EPLBD or EPBD between January 2008 and December 2012. Results: In cases with large CBDS (>10 mm), EPLBD and EPBD had similar results in terms of the success rate of stone removal in the first (65% vs. 84%) and total attempts (100% vs. 95%), use of mechanical lithotripter (64% vs. 80%), and procedure time (48.0 ± 17.8 min vs. 44.1 ± 17.1 min). The necessity for crushing stones with a mechanical lithotripter was significantly decreased in EPLBD compared to EPBD (25% vs. 80%). In all cases with CBDS, there was no significant difference in complication rates between EPLBD and EPBD (3.3% vs. 4.7%). Conclusions: Compared to EPBD, EPLBD appears safe and effective for removing large CBDS and decreases the necessity of lithotripsy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Endoscopic papillary large-balloon dilation (EPLBD) has been popular worldwide for difficult stones. At the primary stage, EPLBD is done immediately after endoscopic sphincterotomy (ES) or after previous ES. Recently, several endoscopists have reported the feasibility and safety of EPLBD without ES and postendoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis (PEP) as adverse events. Herein, we encountered a case of PEP in which EPLBD was carried out through a spontaneous fistula in the papillary roof, although there was no manipulation of the pancreatic duct. We learned a lesson from the present case in which possible PEP might occur during the procedure of EPLBD without ES. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]