BACKGROUND & AIMS: Limited endoscopic sphincterotomy with large balloon dilation (ESBD) is an alternative to endoscopic sphincterotomy (ES) for removing bile duct stones, but it is not clear which procedure is most effective. We compared the 2 techniques in removal of bile duct stones. METHODS:Between September 2005 and September 2011, 156 consecutive patients with suspected of having, or known to have, common bile duct stones were randomly assigned to groups that underwent ES or ESBD. Patients in the ESBD group underwent limited sphincterotomy (up to half of the sphincter) followed by balloon dilation to the size of the common bile duct or 15 mm, and patients in the ES group underwent complete sphincterotomy alone. Stones were then removed using standard techniques. The primary outcome was percentage of stones cleared, and secondary outcomes included procedural time, method of stone extraction, number of procedures required for stone clearance, morbidities and mortality within 30 days, and direct cost. RESULTS: There was no significant difference between groups in percentage of stones cleared (ES vs ESBD: 88.5% vs 89.0%). More patients in the ES group (46.2%) than the ESBD group (28.8%) required mechanical lithotripsy (P = .028), particularly for stones ≥15 mm (90.9% vs 58.1%; P = .002). Morbidities developed in 10.3% of patients in the ES group and 6.8% of patients in the ESBD group (P = .46). The cost of the hospitalization was also significantly lower in the ESBD group (P = .034). CONCLUSIONS:ESBD and ES clear bile stones with equal efficacy. However, ESBD reduces the need for mechanical lithotripsy and is less expensive; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00164853.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Limited endoscopic sphincterotomy with large balloon dilation (ESBD) is an alternative to endoscopic sphincterotomy (ES) for removing bile duct stones, but it is not clear which procedure is most effective. We compared the 2 techniques in removal of bile duct stones. METHODS: Between September 2005 and September 2011, 156 consecutive patients with suspected of having, or known to have, common bile duct stones were randomly assigned to groups that underwent ES or ESBD. Patients in the ESBD group underwent limited sphincterotomy (up to half of the sphincter) followed by balloon dilation to the size of the common bile duct or 15 mm, and patients in the ES group underwent complete sphincterotomy alone. Stones were then removed using standard techniques. The primary outcome was percentage of stones cleared, and secondary outcomes included procedural time, method of stone extraction, number of procedures required for stone clearance, morbidities and mortality within 30 days, and direct cost. RESULTS: There was no significant difference between groups in percentage of stones cleared (ES vs ESBD: 88.5% vs 89.0%). More patients in the ES group (46.2%) than the ESBD group (28.8%) required mechanical lithotripsy (P = .028), particularly for stones ≥15 mm (90.9% vs 58.1%; P = .002). Morbidities developed in 10.3% of patients in the ES group and 6.8% of patients in the ESBD group (P = .46). The cost of the hospitalization was also significantly lower in the ESBD group (P = .034). CONCLUSIONS: ESBD and ES clear bile stones with equal efficacy. However, ESBD reduces the need for mechanical lithotripsy and is less expensive; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00164853.