Search

Background: Limited endoscopic sphincterotomy with large balloon dilation (ES-LBD) and endoscopic papillary large-balloon dilation (EPLBD) have been proven safe and effective for removal of bile duct stones. However, the long-term outcomes are not clear. The aim of this study was to assess the long-term outcomes of EPLBD (12-15 mm) with or without limited sphincterotomy for removal of common bile duct (CBD) stones., Methods: Patients with EPLBD or ES-LBD referred for the removal of bile-duct stones between June 2008 and August 2020 were retrospectively reviewed. Complete stone clearance, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP)-related adverse events, and late biliary complications during long-term follow-up were analyzed., Results: Basic patient characteristics were not significantly different between the groups that underwent EPLBD (n = 168) and ES-LBD (n = 57). EPLBD compared with ES-LBD resulted in similar outcomes in terms of overall successful stone removal (99.4% vs. 100%, P = 1.00) and ERCP-related adverse events (7.7% vs. 5.3%, P = 0.77). The mean duration of the follow-up were 113.6 months and 106.7 months for patients with EPLBD and ES-LBD, respectively (P = 0.13). There was no significant difference between EPLBD and ES-LBD in the incidence of stone recurrence [20 (11.9%) vs. 9 (15.8%); P = 0.49]. Multivariate analysis showed that a diameter of CBD ≥ 15 mm (OR = 3.001; 95% CI: 1.357-6.640; P = 0.007) was an independent risk factor for stone recurrence., Conclusions: The application of a large balloon (12-15 mm) via EPLBD is an effective and safe alternative to ES-LBD for extraction of large CBD stones. Endoscopic sphincterotomy prior to EPLBD may be unnecessary. A diameter of CBD ≥ 15 mm is a risk factor of stone recurrence., (Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

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., (© 2013 Japanese Society of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Surgery.)

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]