Literature DB >> 22642953

Balloon dilation with adequate duration is safer than sphincterotomy for extracting bile duct stones: a systematic review and meta-analyses.

Wei-Chih Liao1, Yu-Kang Tu, Ming-Shiang Wu, Hsiu-Po Wang, Jaw-Town Lin, Joseph W Leung, Kuo-Liong Chien.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) is the standard treatment for choledocholithiasis. Endoscopic papillary balloon dilation (EPBD) has a lower risk for bleeding than EST, but EPBD is reserved for patients with bleeding diathesis because some studies reported that it increases the risk for pancreatitis. A short dilation time (≤1 minute) is therefore recommended to reduce pancreatitis. However, there is evidence for an inverse relationship between EPBD duration and pancreatitis, prompting reevaluation of the optimal duration and relative safety of EPBD vs EST.
METHODS: We systematically reviewed randomized controlled trials to compare long EPBD (>1 minute), short EPBD (≤1 minute), and EST regarding pancreatitis and overall complications. In addition to pairwise meta-analyses, Bayesian network meta-analysis was undertaken to compare the 3 procedures together. Relation between duration and outcome was also analyzed by meta-regression.
RESULTS: Compared with EST, short EPBD had a higher risk for pancreatitis (odds ratio [OR] by traditional analysis, 3.87; 95% confidence interval, 1.08-13.84 and OR by network meta-analysis, 4.14; 95% credible interval, 1.58-12.56), but long EPBD did not pose a higher risk than EST (1.14, 0.56-2.35 and 1.07, 0.38-2.76). Long EPBD had a lower overall rate of complications than EST (0.61, 0.36-1.04 and 0.54, 0.20-1.36). In network meta-analysis, probabilities of being the safest treatment for long EPBD/short EPBD/EST regarding pancreatitis and overall complications were 43.9%/0.2%/55.9% and 90.3%/1.3%/8.4%, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: Duration of EPBD is inversely associated with pancreatitis risk. Currently recommended ≤1-minute dilation actually increases pancreatitis. EPBD with adequate duration may be preferred over EST because of comparable pancreatitis but lower overall complication rates.
Copyright © 2012 AGA Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22642953     DOI: 10.1016/j.cgh.2012.05.017

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol        ISSN: 1542-3565            Impact factor:   11.382


  21 in total

1.  Small sphincterotomy combined with endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation vs sphincterotomy alone for removal of common bile duct stones.

Authors:  Shi-Bin Guo; Hua Meng; Zhi-Jun Duan; Chun-Yan Li
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2014-12-21       Impact factor: 5.742

Review 2.  Comparison of endoscopic papillary balloon dilatation and endoscopic sphincterotomy for bile duct stones.

Authors:  Yuji Sakai; Toshio Tsuyuguchi; Harutoshi Sugiyama; Masahiro Hayashi; Jun-Ichi Senoo; Yuko Kusakabe; Shin Yasui; Rintaro Mikata; Osamu Yokosuka
Journal:  World J Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2016-05-25

Review 3.  Endoscopic Papillary Large Balloon Dilation Versus Endoscopic Sphincterotomy for Treatment of Bile Duct Stones.

Authors:  Abdul Haseeb; Martin L Freeman
Journal:  Curr Treat Options Gastroenterol       Date:  2019-06

4.  Endoscopic papillary balloon dilation versus sphincterotomy for removal of small common bile duct stones in young patients: unresolved issues for an expanding technique.

Authors:  Imad Elkhatib; Thomas J Savides
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2014-05       Impact factor: 3.199

Review 5.  Reappraisal of endoscopic papillary balloon dilation for the management of common bile duct stones.

Authors:  Kwok-Hung Lai; Hoi-Hung Chan; Tzung-Jiun Tsai; Jin-Shiung Cheng; Ping-I Hsu
Journal:  World J Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2015-02-16

6.  Endoscopic papillary large balloon dilatation with sphincterotomy is safe and effective for biliary stone removal independent of timing and size of sphincterotomy.

Authors:  Usman Iqbal Aujla; Nimzing Ladep; Laura Dwyer; Stephen Hood; Nicholas Stern; Richard Sturgess
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2017-12-28       Impact factor: 5.742

Review 7.  Is endoscopic papillary balloon dilatation really a risk factor for post-ERCP pancreatitis?

Authors:  Toshio Fujisawa; Koichi Kagawa; Kantaro Hisatomi; Kensuke Kubota; Atsushi Nakajima; Nobuyuki Matsuhashi
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2016-07-14       Impact factor: 5.742

8.  Endoscopic papillary balloon dilation after sphincterotomy for difficult choledocholithiasis: A case-controlled study.

Authors:  Bruno Rosa; Pedro Moutinho Ribeiro; Ana Rebelo; António Pinto Correia; José Cotter
Journal:  World J Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2013-05-16

Review 9.  Endoscopic papillary balloon dilation: revival of the old technique.

Authors:  Seung Uk Jeong; Sung-Hoon Moon; Myung-Hwan Kim
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2013-12-07       Impact factor: 5.742

10.  Is the Balloon Dilation Duration in Endoscopic Papillary Balloon Dilation (EPBD) Related to the Occurrence of Post-EPBD Pancreatitis?

Authors:  Dong Uk Kim
Journal:  Clin Endosc       Date:  2015-01-31
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.