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 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]

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.)