+ Site Statistics
References:
52,654,530
Abstracts:
29,560,856
PMIDs:
28,072,755
+ Search Articles
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
Most Shared
PDF Full Text
+ PDF Full Text
Request PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
Follow on LinkedIn
+ Translate
+ Recently Requested

Endoscopic sphincterotomy plus balloon dilation versus endoscopic sphincterotomy for choledocholithiasis: A meta-analysis



Endoscopic sphincterotomy plus balloon dilation versus endoscopic sphincterotomy for choledocholithiasis: A meta-analysis



Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology 28(6): 937-945



Endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) alone and EST combined with balloon dilation (ESBD) are important endoscopic techniques for stone extraction. We were to conduct a meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of ESBD and EST. Meta-analysis was performed respectively on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and nonrandomized studies comparing the efficacy and safety of ESBD and EST. The results of three RCTs showed that stone removal in first session (relative risk [RR] 1.01, 0.92-1.11, P=0.85) and the utility of endoscopic mechanical lithotripsy (EML) (RR 0.78, 0.49-1.23, P=0.29) were equivalent between ESBD and EST. ESBD has equivalent complications (RR 0.61, 0.17-2.25, P=0.46) and post-ERCP pancreatitis (Peto odds ratio [OR] 1.11, 0.37-3.35, P=0.86), but less bleeding (Peto OR 0.10, 0.03-0.30, P<0.0001). The analysis of six retrospective studies suggested higher initial success in stone removal (RR 1.11, 1.02-1.20, P=0.01) and less EML (RR 0.32, 0.22-0.46, P<0.00001) in ESBD group. Less complications (RR 0.60, 0.44-0.83, P=0.02) happened in ESBD group, but equivalent post-ERCP pancreatitis (Peto OR 0.65, 0.37-1.15, P=0.14) and bleeding (Peto OR 0.60, 0.29-1.26, P=0.18). For patients with stones ≥ 15 mm, ESBD required less EML (RR 0.35, 0.24-0.51, P<0.00001) and caused fewer complications (RR 0.67, 0.38-0.92, P=0.02). ESBD is feasible for the treatment of choledocholithiasis without increased risk of complications, causing less bleeding. However, it warrants more clinical trials to compare the efficacy and safety of ESBD and EST.

(PDF emailed within 0-6 h: $19.90)

Accession: 036800431

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 23489041

DOI: 10.1111/jgh.12192


Related references

Endoscopic sphincterotomy plus large-balloon dilation vs endoscopic sphincterotomy for choledocholithiasis: a meta-analysis. World Journal of Gastroenterology 19(48): 9453-9460, 2014

Endoscopic sphincterotomy with large balloon dilation versus endoscopic sphincterotomy for bile duct stones: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Biomed Research International 2015: 673103, 2015

Comparison of endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation and endoscopic sphincterotomy for retrieval of choledocholithiasis: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Journal of Gastroenterology 47(6): 655-663, 2012

Sphincterotomy plus balloon dilation versus sphincterotomy alone for choledocholithiasis: a meta-analysis. Endoscopy 2019, 2019

Comparison between endoscopic sphincterotomy vs endoscopic sphincterotomy associated with balloon dilation for removal of bile duct stones: A systematic review and meta-analysis based on randomized controlled trials. World Journal of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy 10(8): 130-144, 2018

Endoscopic papillary balloon dilatation versus endoscopic sphincterotomy in the treatment for choledocholithiasis: a meta-analysis. Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology 27(3): 464-471, 2012

Endoscopic large balloon dilation versus endoscopic sphincterotomy in patients with choledocholithiasis. Journal of Gastroenterology 47(10): 1160-1; Author Reply 1162-3, 2013

Randomized trial of endoscopic sphincterotomy with balloon dilation versus endoscopic sphincterotomy alone for removal of bile duct stones. Gastroenterology 144(2): 341-345.E1, 2013

Endoscopic sphincterotomy plus large-balloon dilation versus endoscopic sphincterotomy for removal of bile-duct stones. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy 66(4): 720-6; Quiz 768, 771, 2007

A cumulative meta-analysis of endoscopic papillary balloon dilation versus endoscopic sphincterotomy for removal of common bile duct stones. Endoscopy 2019, 2019

A Preliminary Comparison of Endoscopic Sphincterotomy, Endoscopic Papillary Large Balloon Dilation, and Combination of the Two in Endoscopic Choledocholithiasis Treatment. Medical Science Monitor 21: 2607-2612, 2016

Endoscopic Papillary Large Balloon Dilation Versus Endoscopic Sphincterotomy for Retrieval of Large Choledocholithiasis: A Prospective Randomized Trial. Journal of Laparoendoscopic and Advanced Surgical Techniques. Part a 27(7): 704-709, 2017

Reappraisal of Endoscopic Papillary Balloon Dilation Versus Sphincterotomy for Choledocholithiasis-Time for a New Trial. Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology 15(11): 1671-1673, 2017

Su1406 Endoscopic Papillary Large Balloon Dilation Versus Endoscopic Sphincterotomy for Common Bile Duct Stones Removal: a Comparative Meta-Analysis of Randomized Control Trials. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy 77(5): Ab313-Ab314, 2013

Endoscopic sphincterotomy and endoscopic papillary balloon dilation therapy for choledocholithiasis. Nihon Naika Gakkai Zasshi. Journal of the Japanese Society of Internal Medicine 92(1): 85-91, 2003