Download PDF
Endoscopy 2019; 51(06): 548-559
DOI: 10.1055/a-0818-3638
Review
© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

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

Alberto Tringali
1   Endoscopy Unit, Department of Surgery, Ospedale Niguarda Ca Granda, Milan, Italy
,
Matteo Rota
2   Department of Clinical Sciences and Community Health, University of Milan, Milan, Italy
3   Department of Molecular and Translational Medicine, University of Brescia, Brescia, Italy
,
Marta Rossi
2   Department of Clinical Sciences and Community Health, University of Milan, Milan, Italy
,
Cesare Hassan
4   Endoscopy Unit, Nuovo Regina Margherita Hospital, Rome, Italy
,
Douglas G. Adler
5   Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Utah Hospital, Salt Lake City, Utah, United States
,
Massimiliano Mutignani
1   Endoscopy Unit, Department of Surgery, Ospedale Niguarda Ca Granda, Milan, Italy
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

submitted 07 April 2018

accepted after revision 25 October 2018

Publication Date:
06 February 2019 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background Endoscopic papillary balloon dilation (EPBD) was introduced to overcome the risk of adverse events associated with endoscopic sphincterotomy in the removal of common bile duct (CBD) stones. We performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing efficacy and safety of EPBD vs. endoscopic sphincterotomy, focusing on stone size, balloon diameter, and balloon dilation time.

Methods A multiple database search was performed, including MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library, from their inception date until October 2017. RCTs comparing the efficacy and safety of EPBD vs. endoscopic sphincterotomy in the removal of CBD stones were included. Cumulative meta-analyses over time, and subgroup analyses according to stone size, and balloon diameter and dilation time were carried out.

Results 25 RCTs met the inclusion criteria. Despite the cumulative meta-analysis showing a trend over time in favor of endoscopic sphincterotomy in studies published up to 2004, the conventional meta-analysis revealed that EPBD was equally efficacious compared with endoscopic sphincterotomy in stone removal at first attempt (odds ratio [OR] 0.95, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.65 – 1.38). Endoscopic sphincterotomy was superior to EPBD in terms of overall stone clearance (OR 0.65, 95 %CI 0.43 – 0.99) in studies published since 2002, but no differences emerged in studies using large ( ≥ 10 mm) balloons (OR 1.37, 95 %CI 0.72 – 2.62). No statistically significant difference in pancreatitis occurrence emerged between EPBD and endoscopic sphincterotomy (OR 1.35, 95 %CI 0.90 – 2.03). Pancreatitis was more common with EPBD than with endoscopic sphincterotomy in studies using balloons < 10 mm (OR 1.78, 95 %CI 1.07 – 2.97), whereas no difference emerged in studies using large balloons (OR 0.84, 95 %CI 0.46 – 1.53). EPBD had lower rates of bleeding and cholecystitis.

Conclusions Our latest data confirm that EPBD is currently inferior to endoscopic sphincterotomy in terms of overall stone clearance. However, EPBD using large balloons (≥ 10 mm) was as effective as endoscopic sphincterotomy, both in stone clearance and the need for endoscopic mechanical lithotripsy, without carrying an increased risk of pancreatitis.

Fig. e1, e2, e4, e6, e8, e10, Table e3 – e7, Supplementary material

 

  • References

  • 1 Staritz M, Ewe K, Meyer zum Buschenfelde KH. Endoscopic papillary dilation (EPD) for the treatment of common bile duct stones and papillary stenosis. Endoscopy 1983; 15: 197-198
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Bergman JJ, van Berkel AM, Bruno MJ. et al. A randomized trial of endoscopic balloon dilation and endoscopic sphincterotomy for removal of bile duct stones in patients with a prior Billroth II gastrectomy. Gastrointest Endosc 2001; 53: 19-26
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Liao WC, Huang SP, Wu MS. et al. Comparison of endoscopic papillary balloon dilatation and sphincterotomy for lithotripsy in difficult sphincterotomy. J Clin Gastroenterol 2008; 42: 295-299
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Baron TH, Harewood GC. Endoscopic balloon dilation of the biliary sphincter compared to endoscopic biliary sphincterotomy for removal of common bile duct stones during ERCP: a metaanalysis of randomized, controlled trials. Am J Gastroenterol 2004; 99: 1455-1460
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Disario JA, Freeman ML, Bjorkman DJ. et al. Endoscopic balloon dilation compared with sphincterotomy for extraction of bile duct stones. Gastroenterology 2004; 127: 1291-1299
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Freeman ML, DiSario JA, Nelson DB. et al. Risk factors for post-ERCP pancreatitis: a prospective, multicenter study. Gastrointest Endosc 2001; 54: 425-434
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Weinberg BM, Shindy W, Lo S. Endoscopic balloon sphincter dilation (sphincteroplasty) versus sphincterotomy for common bile duct stones. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2006; CD004890
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Williams EJ, Green J, Beckingham I. et al. Guidelines on the management of common bile duct stones (CBDS). Gut 2008; 57: 1004-1021
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Maple JT, Ikenberry SO. et al. ASGE Standards of Practice Committee. The role of endoscopy in the management of choledocholithiasis. Gastrointest Endosc 2011; 74: 731-744
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Feng Y, Zhu H, Chen X. et al. Comparison of endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation and endoscopic sphincterotomy for retrieval of choledocholithiasis: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Gastroenterol 2012; 47: 655-663
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Zhao HC, He L, Zhou DC. et al. Meta-analysis comparison of endoscopic papillary balloon dilatation and endoscopic sphincteropapillotomy. World J Gastroenterol 2013; 19: 3883-3891
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Jin PP, Cheng JF, Liu D. et al. Endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation vs endoscopic sphincterotomy for retrieval of common bile duct stones: a meta-analysis. World J Gastroenterol 2014; 20: 5548-5556
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Park CH, Jung JH, Nam E. et al. Comparative efficacy of various endoscopic techniques for the treatment of common bile duct stones: a network meta-analysis. Gastrointest Endosc 2018; 87: 43-57 e10
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Tsujino T, Kawabe T, Isayama H. et al. Efficacy and safety of low-pressured and short-time dilation in endoscopic papillary balloon dilation for bile duct stone removal. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2008; 23: 867-871
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Liao WC, Tu YK, Wu MS. et al. Balloon dilation with adequate duration is safer than sphincterotomy for extracting bile duct stones: a systematic review and meta-analyses. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2012; 10: 1101-1109
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Kim TH, Kim JH, Seo DW. et al. International consensus guidelines for endoscopic papillary large-balloon dilation. Gastrointest Endosc 2016; 83: 37-47
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J. et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ 2009; 339: b2700
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gotzsche PC. et al. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 2011; 343: d5928
    Google Scholar
  • 19 DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 1986; 7: 177-188
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Higgins JP, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med 2002; 21: 1539-1558
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M. et al. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ 1997; 315: 629-634
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Minami A, Nakatsu T, Uchida N. et al. Papillary dilation vs sphincterotomy in endoscopic removal of bile duct stones. A randomized trial with manometric function. Dig Dis Sci 1995; 40: 2550-2554
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Bergman JJ, Rauws EA, Fockens P. et al. Randomised trial of endoscopic balloon dilation versus endoscopic sphincterotomy for removal of bileduct stones. Lancet 1997; 349: 1124-1129
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Chen YK, Deguzman L, Godil A. et al. Prospective randomized trial of endoscopic balloon dilation versus sphincterotomy for extraction of bile duct stones. Gastrointest Endosc 1998; 47: AB111
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Cho YD, Hong SJ, Moon JH. et al. Endoscopic papillary balloon dilatation versus endoscopic sphincterotomy for removal of common bile duct stones. Gastrointest Endosc 1998; 47: AB111
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Iwata F, Miyaki T, Yamada J. et al. Effect of endoscopic papillary balloon dilation for the management of common bile duct stones in the elderly. Gastroenterology 1998; 114: A524
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Ochi Y, Mukawa K, Kiyosawa K. et al. Comparing the treatment outcomes of endoscopic papillary dilation and endoscopic sphincterotomy for removal of bile duct stones. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 1999; 14: 90-96
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Arnold JC, Benz C, Martin WR. et al. Endoscopic papillary balloon dilation vs. sphincterotomy for removal of common bile duct stones: a prospective randomized pilot study. Endoscopy 2001; 33: 563-567
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Yasuda I, Tomita E, Enya M. et al. Can endoscopic papillary balloon dilation really preserve sphincter of Oddi function?. Gut 2001; 49: 686-691
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Natsui M, Narisawa R, Motoyama H. et al. What is an appropriate indication for endoscopic papillary balloon dilation?. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2002; 14: 635-640
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Fujita N, Maguchi H, Komatsu Y. et al. Endoscopic sphincterotomy and endoscopic papillary balloon dilatation for bile duct stones: a prospective randomized controlled multicenter trial. Gastrointest Endosc 2003; 57: 151-155
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Vlavianos P, Chopra K, Mandalia S. et al. Endoscopic balloon dilatation versus endoscopic sphincterotomy for the removal of bile duct stones: a prospective randomised trial. Gut 2003; 52: 1165-1169
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Lin CK, Lai KH, Chan HH. et al. Endoscopic balloon dilatation is a safe method in the management of common bile duct stones. Dig Liver Dis 2004; 36: 68-72
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Takezawa M, Kida Y, Kida M. et al. Influence of endoscopic papillary balloon dilation and endoscopic sphincterotomy on sphincter of oddi function: a randomized controlled trial. Endoscopy 2004; 36: 631-637
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Tanaka S, Sawayama T, Yoshioka T. Endoscopic papillary balloon dilation and endoscopic sphincterotomy for bile duct stones: long-term outcomes in a prospective randomized controlled trial. Gastrointest Endosc 2004; 59: 614-618
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Watanabe H, Yoneda M, Tominaga K. et al. Comparison between endoscopic papillary balloon dilatation and endoscopic sphincterotomy for the treatment of common bile duct stones. J Gastroenterol 2007; 42: 56-62
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Yasuda I, Fujita N, Maguchi H. et al. Long-term outcomes after endoscopic sphincterotomy versus endoscopic papillary balloon dilation for bile duct stones. Gastrointest Endosc 2010; 72: 1185-1191
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Oh MJ, Kim TN. Prospective comparative study of endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation and endoscopic sphincterotomy for removal of large bile duct stones in patients above 45 years of age. Scand J Gastroenterol 2012; 47: 1071-1077
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Fu BQ, Xu YP, Tao LS. et al. Endoscopic papillary balloon intermittent dilatation and endoscopic sphincterotomy for bile duct stones. World J Gastroenterol 2013; 19: 2425-2432
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Minakari M, Samani RR, Shavakhi A. et al. Endoscopic papillary balloon dilatation in comparison with endoscopic sphincterotomy for the treatment of large common bile duct stone. Adv Biomed Res 2013; 2: 46
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Seo YR, Moon JH, Choi HJ. et al. Comparison of endoscopic papillary balloon dilation and sphincterotomy in young patients with CBD stones and gallstones. Dig Dis Sci 2014; 59: 1042-1047
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Guo Y, Lei S, Gong W. et al. A preliminary comparison of endoscopic sphincterotomy, endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation, and combination of the two in endoscopic choledocholithiasis treatment. Med Sci Monit 2015; 21: 2607-2612
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Kogure H, Kawahata S, Mukai T. et al. OP211 A multicenter randomized trial of endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation alone versus endoscopic sphincterotomy for removal of bile duct stones: MARVELOUS trial. United European Gastroenterol J 2015; 3: A69
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Omar MA, Abdelshafy M, Ahmed MY. et al. Endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation versus endoscopic sphincterotomy for retrieval of large choledocholithiasis: a prospective randomized trial. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 2017; 27: 704-709
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Akiyama D, Hamada T, Isayama H. et al. Superiority of 10-mm-wide balloon over 8-mm-wide balloon in papillary dilation for bile duct stones: a matched cohort study. Saudi J Gastroenterol 2015; 21: 213-219
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Youn YH, Lim HC, Jahng JH. et al. The increase in balloon size to over 15 mm does not affect the development of pancreatitis after endoscopic papillary large balloon dilatation for bile duct stone removal. Dig Dis Sci 2011; 56: 1572-1577
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Seo YR, Moon JH, Choi HJ. et al. Papillary balloon dilation is not itself a cause of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis; results of anterograde and retrograde papillary balloon dilation. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2013; 28: 1416-1421
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Liao WC, Lee CT, Chang CY. et al. Randomized trial of 1-minute versus 5-minute endoscopic balloon dilation for extraction of bile duct stones. Gastrointest Endosc 2010; 72: 1154-1162
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 49 Mac MathunaP, Siegenberg D, Gibbons D. et al. The acute and long-term effect of balloon sphincteroplasty on papillary structure in pigs. Gastrointest Endosc 1996; 44: 650-655
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 50 Shim CS, Kim JW, Lee TY. et al. Is endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation safe for treating large CBD stones?. Saudi J Gastroenterol 2016; 22: 251-259
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 51 Fujisawa T, Kagawa K, Hisatomi K. et al. Is endoscopic papillary balloon dilatation really a risk factor for post-ERCP pancreatitis?. World J Gastroenterol 2016; 22: 5909-5916
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 52 Doi S, Yasuda I, Mukai T. et al. Comparison of long-term outcomes after endoscopic sphincterotomy versus endoscopic papillary balloon dilation: a propensity score-based cohort analysis. J Gastroenterol 2013; 48: 1090-1096
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 53 Lu Y, Wu JC, Liu L. et al. Short-term and long-term outcomes after endoscopic sphincterotomy versus endoscopic papillary balloon dilation for bile duct stones. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2014; 26: 1367-1373
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 54 Paik WH, Ryu JK, Park JM. et al. Which is the better treatment for the removal of large biliary stones? Endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation versus endoscopic sphincterotomy. Gut Liver 2014; 8: 438-444
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 55 Juni P, Holenstein F, Sterne J. et al. Direction and impact of language bias in meta-analyses of controlled trials: empirical study. Int J Epidemiol 2002; 31: 115-123
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 56 Morrison A, Polisena J, Husereau D. et al. The effect of English-language restriction on systematic review-based meta-analyses: a systematic review of empirical studies. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2012; 28: 138-144
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 57 Tringali A, Hassan C, Rota M. et al. Covered vs. uncovered self-expandable metal stents for malignant distal biliary strictures: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Endoscopy 2018; 50: 631-641
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar