OBJECTIVES: We sought to evaluate the safety, efficacy, and feasibility of endoscopic sphincterotomy plus large balloon dilation (ESLBD) and to compare procedural time and fluoroscopy time of ESLBD with those of endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) alone for patients with large bile duct stones. METHODS: Retrospective analysis. RESULTS: A total of 101 patients with large bile duct stones were treated: 53 were treated by ESLBD and 48 with EST alone. ESLBD resulted in similar outcomes in overall successful stone removal (100% vs. 97%) and complications (4% vs. 6%); however, although the rate of complete stone removal in the first session using ESLBD tended to be higher than when EST alone was used, it was not statistically significant (96% vs. 85%, P=0.057). Mechanical lithotripsy was required significantly more often in the EST group compared to the ESLBD group (25% vs. 6%, P<0.01). Total procedure time in the ESLBD group was significantly shorter than that of the EST group (32 vs. 40 min, P<0.05). Total fluoroscopy time in the ESLBD group was significantly shorter in the EST group (13 vs. 22 min, P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: ESLBD is an effective and safe treatment in patients with large bile duct stones. In addition, ESLBD appears to decrease procedure time and fluoroscopy time and reduce the need for mechanical lithotripsy as compared to EST alone.
OBJECTIVES: We sought to evaluate the safety, efficacy, and feasibility of endoscopic sphincterotomy plus large balloon dilation (ESLBD) and to compare procedural time and fluoroscopy time of ESLBD with those of endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) alone for patients with large bile duct stones. METHODS: Retrospective analysis. RESULTS: A total of 101 patients with large bile duct stones were treated: 53 were treated by ESLBD and 48 with EST alone. ESLBD resulted in similar outcomes in overall successful stone removal (100% vs. 97%) and complications (4% vs. 6%); however, although the rate of complete stone removal in the first session using ESLBD tended to be higher than when EST alone was used, it was not statistically significant (96% vs. 85%, P=0.057). Mechanical lithotripsy was required significantly more often in the EST group compared to the ESLBD group (25% vs. 6%, P<0.01). Total procedure time in the ESLBD group was significantly shorter than that of the EST group (32 vs. 40 min, P<0.05). Total fluoroscopy time in the ESLBD group was significantly shorter in the EST group (13 vs. 22 min, P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: ESLBD is an effective and safe treatment in patients with large bile duct stones. In addition, ESLBD appears to decrease procedure time and fluoroscopy time and reduce the need for mechanical lithotripsy as compared to EST alone.
Authors: Soo Jung Park; Jin Hong Kim; Jae Chul Hwang; Ho Gak Kim; Don Haeng Lee; Seok Jeong; Sang-Woo Cha; Young Deok Cho; Hong Ja Kim; Jong Hyeok Kim; Jong Ho Moon; Sang-Heum Park; Takao Itoi; Hiroyuki Isayama; Hirofumi Kogure; Se Joon Lee; Kyo Tae Jung; Hye Sun Lee; Todd H Baron; Dong Ki Lee Journal: Dig Dis Sci Date: 2012-12-08 Impact factor: 3.199