The efficacy of limited endoscopic sphincterotomy plus endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation for removal of large bile duct stones.
Complications
Endoscopic papillary balloon dilation
Endoscopic sphincterotomy
Large bile duct stone extraction
Limited endoscopic sphincterotomy plus endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation
Journal
BMC gastroenterology
ISSN: 1471-230X
Titre abrégé: BMC Gastroenterol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968547
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
18 Jun 2019
18 Jun 2019
Historique:
received:
03
10
2018
accepted:
07
06
2019
entrez:
20
6
2019
pubmed:
20
6
2019
medline:
7
1
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The removal of large bile duct stones (> 15 mm) by conventional endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) and endoscopic papillary balloon dilation (EPBD) can be challenging, requiring mechanical lithotripsy (ML) in addition to EST or EPBD. The primary complication of ML is basket and stone impaction, which can lead to complications such as pancreatitis and cholangitis. The present study aims to investigate the efficacy of limited EST plus endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation (EST-EPLBD) for large bile duct stone extraction with an extent of cutting < 1/2 the length of the papillary mound. We enrolled 185 patients with ≥15 mm bile duct stones who received EST, EPLBD and limited EST-EPLBD treatment from January 1, 2010 to February 28, 2018, at Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital (Kaohsiung, Taiwan). All patients were categorized into three groups: EST group (n = 31), EPLBD group (n = 96), and limited EST-EPLBD group (n = 58). The primary outcome variables were the success rate of complete stone removal and complications. The limited EST-EPLBD group exhibited a higher success rate of the first-session treatment compared with the EST and EPLBD groups (98.3% vs. 83.9% vs. 86.5%; P = 0.032) but required a longer procedure time (32 (12-61) min vs. 23.5 (17-68) min vs. 25.0 (14-60) min; P = 0.001). The need for ML during the procedure was 4 (12.9%) in the EST group, 10 (10.4%) in the EPLBD group and 2 (3.4%) in the limited EST-EPLBD group. Post-procedure bleeding in the EST group was more common than that in the limited EST-EPLBD group (9.7% vs. 0%; P = 0.038). Furthermore, dilated bile duct was the only risk factor for bile duct stone recurrence in the limited EST-EPLBD group. Limited EST-EPLBD exhibits a higher success rate but requires marginally longer procedure time for the first-session treatment. Furthermore, dilated bile duct is the only risk factor for bile duct stone recurrence in patients undergoing limited EST-EPLBD.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The removal of large bile duct stones (> 15 mm) by conventional endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) and endoscopic papillary balloon dilation (EPBD) can be challenging, requiring mechanical lithotripsy (ML) in addition to EST or EPBD. The primary complication of ML is basket and stone impaction, which can lead to complications such as pancreatitis and cholangitis. The present study aims to investigate the efficacy of limited EST plus endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation (EST-EPLBD) for large bile duct stone extraction with an extent of cutting < 1/2 the length of the papillary mound.
METHODS
METHODS
We enrolled 185 patients with ≥15 mm bile duct stones who received EST, EPLBD and limited EST-EPLBD treatment from January 1, 2010 to February 28, 2018, at Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital (Kaohsiung, Taiwan). All patients were categorized into three groups: EST group (n = 31), EPLBD group (n = 96), and limited EST-EPLBD group (n = 58). The primary outcome variables were the success rate of complete stone removal and complications.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The limited EST-EPLBD group exhibited a higher success rate of the first-session treatment compared with the EST and EPLBD groups (98.3% vs. 83.9% vs. 86.5%; P = 0.032) but required a longer procedure time (32 (12-61) min vs. 23.5 (17-68) min vs. 25.0 (14-60) min; P = 0.001). The need for ML during the procedure was 4 (12.9%) in the EST group, 10 (10.4%) in the EPLBD group and 2 (3.4%) in the limited EST-EPLBD group. Post-procedure bleeding in the EST group was more common than that in the limited EST-EPLBD group (9.7% vs. 0%; P = 0.038). Furthermore, dilated bile duct was the only risk factor for bile duct stone recurrence in the limited EST-EPLBD group.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Limited EST-EPLBD exhibits a higher success rate but requires marginally longer procedure time for the first-session treatment. Furthermore, dilated bile duct is the only risk factor for bile duct stone recurrence in patients undergoing limited EST-EPLBD.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31215401
doi: 10.1186/s12876-019-1017-x
pii: 10.1186/s12876-019-1017-x
pmc: PMC6582576
doi:
Types de publication
Evaluation Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
93Références
Gastrointest Endosc. 2003 Feb;57(2):156-9
pubmed: 12556775
Gastrointest Endosc. 2007 Oct;66(4):720-6; quiz 768, 771
pubmed: 17905013
Gut. 2008 Sep;57(9):1322-9
pubmed: 18469092
Am J Gastroenterol. 2009 Mar;104(3):560-5
pubmed: 19174779
J Clin Gastroenterol. 2009 Sep;43(8):782-6
pubmed: 19318979
J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg. 2009;16(5):618-23
pubmed: 19551331
Gastrointest Endosc. 2009 Nov;70(5):915-22
pubmed: 19647241
Am J Gastroenterol. 2011 Feb;106(2):278-85
pubmed: 21045816
Surg Endosc. 2011 Oct;25(10):3330-7
pubmed: 21533521
J Gastroenterol. 2012 Jun;47(6):655-63
pubmed: 22361862
Gut Liver. 2012 Jan;6(1):107-12
pubmed: 22375179
World J Gastrointest Endosc. 2012 May 16;4(5):167-79
pubmed: 22624068
Scand J Gastroenterol. 2012 Sep;47(8-9):1071-7
pubmed: 22934594
Gastroenterology. 2013 Feb;144(2):341-345.e1
pubmed: 23085096
BMC Gastroenterol. 2013 Jan 17;13:15
pubmed: 23324454
J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci. 2014 Jun;21(6):405-9
pubmed: 24123873
Scand J Gastroenterol. 2014 Jan;49(1):121-8
pubmed: 24164293
Gut Liver. 2014 Jul;8(4):438-44
pubmed: 25071911
BMC Gastroenterol. 2015 May 16;15:59
pubmed: 25980964
Endoscopy. 2016 Apr;48(4):385-402
pubmed: 26890676
Dig Dis Sci. 2016 Oct;61(10):3045-3053
pubmed: 27286878
Surg Endosc. 2017 Feb;31(2):650-655
pubmed: 27317037
BMC Gastroenterol. 2016 Jul 12;16(1):70
pubmed: 27406119
Endoscopy. 2017 Oct;49(10):968-976
pubmed: 28753698
World J Gastroenterol. 2017 Jul 21;23(27):4950-4957
pubmed: 28785149
World J Gastroenterol. 2017 Aug 21;23(31):5739-5745
pubmed: 28883699
World J Gastroenterol. 2017 Dec 28;23(48):8597-8604
pubmed: 29358868