Evaluation of the safety and efficacy of minimal endoscopic sphincterotomy followed by papillary balloon dilation for the removal of common bile duct stones

• Published in: Saudi journal of gastroenterology Vol. 26; no. 6; pp. 344 - 350
• Main Authors: Ishii, Shigeto, Fujisawa, Toshio, Ushio, Mako, Takahashi, Sho, Yamagata, Wataru, Takasaki, Yusuke, Suzuki, Akinori, Okawa, Yoshihiro, Ochiai, Kazushige, Tomishima, Ko, Kanazawa, Ryo, Saito, Hiroaki, Shiina, Shuichiro, Isayama, Hiroyuki
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: India Wolters Kluwer India Pvt. Ltd 01-11-2020; Medknow Publications and Media Pvt. Ltd; Medknow Publications & Media Pvt. Ltd; Wolters Kluwer - Medknow; Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications
• Subjects: Bile; bleeding; common bile duct stones; endoscopic papillary balloon dilation; endoscopic sphincterotomy; Endoscopy; Original; Pancreatitis; post-ercp pancreatitis; post-ERCP pancreatitis; endoscopic papillary balloon dilation; endoscopic sphincterotomy; common bile duct stones; Bleeding
• ISSN: 1319-3767; 1998-4049
• DOI: 10.4103/sjg.sjg_162_20

Background/Aim: A sufficiently open papilla is needed to remove common bile duct stones (CBDS) but endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) requires a high level of skill and is difficult with endoscopic papillary balloon dilation (EPBD). The main adverse event of EST is bleeding and perforation and that of EPBD is post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis. To reduce these adverse events we employed minimal EST followed by papillary dilation (ESBD), and retrospectively evaluated its efficacy and safety compared with EST.
Patients and Methods: CBDS patients who underwent EST (n = 114) or ESBD (n = 321) at Juntendo University Hospital from January 2009 to December 2018 were consecutively enrolled, retrospectively. The exclusion criteria were large-balloon dilation (≥ 12 mm), large CBDS (>12 mm), and previous EST/EPBD. We compared the overall stone removal rate, incidence of adverse event, procedure time, number of ERCP procedures, and rate of mechanical lithotripsy (ML) between the two groups.
Results: Complete stone removal was successful in both ESBD and EST group. However, the rate of multiple ERCP sessions was significantly lower (35.1% vs. 12.8%, P < 0.001), procedure time was shorter (31.6 vs. 25.8 min, P = 0.01), and rate of ML was lower (16.7% vs. 7.8%, P = 0.01) in ESBD group. Bleeding was significantly more frequent in the EST group (9.6% vs. 1.2%, P < 0.001), particularly acute bleeding (7.9% vs. 0.9%, P < 0.001).
Conclusions: ESBD is more efficient and safer in the management of CBD stones than EST. A prospective randomized study comparing ESBD with EST is needed to establish this combination technique.