AIM: To compare small sphincterotomy combined with endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation (SES + ELBD) and endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) for large bile duct stones. METHODS: We compared prospectively SES + ELBD (group A, n = 27) with conventional EST (group B, n = 28) for the treatment of large bile duct stones (> or = 15 mm). When the stone could not be removed with a normal basket, mechanical lithotripsy was performed. We compared the rates of complete stone removal with one session and application of mechanical lithotripsy. RESULTS: No significant differences were observed in the mean largest stone size (A: 20.8 mm, B: 21.3 mm), bile duct diameter (A: 21.4 mm, B: 20.5 mm), number of stones (A: 2.2, B: 2.3), or procedure time (A: 18 min, B: 19 min) between the two groups. The rates of complete stone removal with one session was 85% in group A and 86% in group B (P = 0.473). Mechanical lithotripsy was required for stone removal in nine of 27 patients (33%) in group A and nine of 28 patients (32%, P = 0.527) in group B. CONCLUSION:SES + ELBD did not show significant benefits compared to conventional EST, especially for the removal of large (> or = 15 mm) bile duct stones.
RCT Entities:
AIM: To compare small sphincterotomy combined with endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation (SES + ELBD) and endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) for large bile duct stones. METHODS: We compared prospectively SES + ELBD (group A, n = 27) with conventional EST (group B, n = 28) for the treatment of large bile duct stones (> or = 15 mm). When the stone could not be removed with a normal basket, mechanical lithotripsy was performed. We compared the rates of complete stone removal with one session and application of mechanical lithotripsy. RESULTS: No significant differences were observed in the mean largest stone size (A: 20.8 mm, B: 21.3 mm), bile duct diameter (A: 21.4 mm, B: 20.5 mm), number of stones (A: 2.2, B: 2.3), or procedure time (A: 18 min, B: 19 min) between the two groups. The rates of complete stone removal with one session was 85% in group A and 86% in group B (P = 0.473). Mechanical lithotripsy was required for stone removal in nine of 27 patients (33%) in group A and nine of 28 patients (32%, P = 0.527) in group B. CONCLUSION:SES + ELBD did not show significant benefits compared to conventional EST, especially for the removal of large (> or = 15 mm) bile duct stones.
Authors: James A Disario; Martin L Freeman; David J Bjorkman; Padraic Macmathuna; Bret T Petersen; Philip E Jaffe; Thomas G Morales; Lee J Hixson; Stuart Sherman; Glen A Lehman; M Mazen Jamal; Firas H Al-Kawas; Mukul Khandelwal; Joseph P Moore; Gregory A Derfus; Priya A Jamidar; Francisco C Ramirez; Michael E Ryan; Karen L Woods; David L Carr-Locke; Stephen C Alder Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2004-11 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Jeung Ho Heo; Dae Hwan Kang; Hyo Jin Jung; Dae Sik Kwon; Jin Kwang An; Bo Suk Kim; Kyung Duk Suh; Sang Yong Lee; Joo Ho Lee; Gwang Ha Kim; Tae Oh Kim; Jeong Heo; Geun Am Song; Mong Cho Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2007-10 Impact factor: 9.427
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