Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Endosc Int Open 2020; 08(10): E1460-E1470
DOI: 10.1055/a-1236-3187
Review

Per-oral pancreatoscopy with intraductal lithotripsy for difficult pancreatic duct stones: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Thomas R. McCarty
1   Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Endoscopy, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States
,
Zain Sobani
2   Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico, United States
,
Tarun Rustagi
2   Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico, United States
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background and study aims Per-oral pancreatoscopy (POP) with intraductal lithotripsy via electrohydraulic lithotripsy (EHL) or laser lithotripsy (LL) facilitates optically-guided stone fragmentation of difficult pancreatic stones refractory to conventional endoscopic therapy. The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of POP with intraductal lithotripsy for difficult pancreatic duct stones.

Methods Individualized search strategies were developed in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses and Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology guidelines. This was a cumulative meta-analysis performed by calculating pooled proportions with rates estimated using random effects models. Measured outcomes included pooled technical success, complete or partial stone fragmentation success, complete duct clearance after initial lithotripsy session, and adverse events (AEs).

Results Ten studies (n = 302 patients; 67.72 % male; mean age 55.10 ± 3.22 years) were included with mean stone size of 10.66 ± 2.19 mm. The most common stone location was in the pancreatic head (66.17 %). Pooled technical success was 91.18 % with an overall fragmentation success of 85.77 %. Single lithotripsy session stone fragmentation and pancreatic duct clearance occurred in 62.05 % of cases. Overall, adverse events were reported in 14.09 % of patients with post-procedure pancreatitis developing in 8.73 %. Of these adverse events, 4.84 % were classified as serious. Comparing POP-EHL vs POP-LL, there was no significant difference in technical success, fragmentation success, single session duct clearance, or AEs (P > 0.0500).

Conclusions Based on this systematic review and meta-analysis, POP with intraductal lithotripsy appears to be an effective and relatively safe procedure for patients with difficult to remove pancreatic duct stones.

Supplementary material



Publication History

Received: 28 April 2020

Accepted: 14 July 2020

Article published online:
07 October 2020

© 2020. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commecial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 

  • References

  • 1 Steer ML, Waxman I, Freedman S. Chronic pancreatitis. N Engl J Med 1995; 332: 1482-1490
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Mitchell RM, Byrne MF, Baillie J. Pancreatitis. Lancet 2003; 361: 1447-1455
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Kloppel G. Pathology of chronic pancreatitis and pancreatic pain. Acta Chir Scand 1990; 156: 261-265
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Choi EK, Lehman GA. Update on endoscopic management of main pancreatic duct stones in chronic calcific pancreatitis. Korean J Intern Med 2012; 27: 20-29
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Ammann RW, Muench R, Otto R. et al. Evolution and regression of pancreatic calcification in chronic pancreatitis. A prospective long-term study of 107 patients. Gastroenterology 1988; 95: 1018-1028
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Sherman S, Lehman GA, Hawes RH. et al. Pancreatic ductal stones: frequency of successful endoscopic removal and improvement in symptoms. Gastrointest Endosc 1991; 37: 511-517
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Adamek HE, Jakobs R, Buttmann A. et al. Long term follow up of patients with chronic pancreatitis and pancreatic stones treated with extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. Gut 1999; 45: 402-405
    Google Scholar
  • 8 Kim YH, Jang SI, Rhee K. et al. Endoscopic treatment of pancreatic calculi. Clin Endosc 2014; 47: 227-235
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Dumonceau JM, Delhaye M, Tringali A. et al. Endoscopic treatment of chronic pancreatitis: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline - Updated August 2018. Endoscopy 2019; 51: 179-193
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Dumonceau JM, Delhaye M, Tringali A. et al. Endoscopic treatment of chronic pancreatitis: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Clinical Guideline. Endoscopy 2012; 44: 784-800
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. Ann Internal Med 2009; 151: W65-W94
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC. et al. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group. JAMA 2000; 283: 2008-2012
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Der Simonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Controlled Clin Trials 1986; 7: 177-188
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Stuart A, Ord JK. Kendall’s Advanced Theory of Statistics. 6th ed. London: Edward Arnold; 1994
    Google Scholar
  • 15 Riley RD, Higgins JP, Deeks JJ. Interpretation of random effects meta-analyses. BMJ 2011; 342: d549
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ. et al. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 2003; 327: 557-560
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Overton RC. A comparison of fixed-effects and mixed (random-effects) models for meta-analysis tests of moderator variable effects. Psychological Methods 1998; 3: 354-379
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Wells G, Shea B. et al. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analysis. Oxford: 3rd Symposium on Systematic Reviews: Beyond the Basics. July 3–5 2000; 2000 Available at (Accessed 24 April 2019): http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp
    Google Scholar
  • 19 Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D. et al. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary. Control Clin Trials 1996; 17: 1-12
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Borenstein M, Higgins JP, Hedges LV. et al. Basics of meta-analysis: I(2) is not an absolute measure of heterogeneity. Res Synth Methods 2017; 8: 5-18
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Mohan BP, Adler DG. Heterogeneity in systematic review and meta-analysis: how to read between the numbers. Gastrointest Endosc 2019; 89: 902-903
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Borenstein M, Hedges LV, Higgins JP. et al. Introduction to meta-analysis. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons; 2011
    Google Scholar
  • 23 Higgins J, Thompson SG, Spiegelhalter DJ. A re-evaluation of random-effects meta-analysis. J R Statist Soc A 2009; 172: 137-159
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 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
  • 25 Easterbrook PJ, Berlin JA, Gopalan R. et al. Publication bias in clinical research. Lancet 1991; 337: 867-872
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Duval S, Tweedie R. Trim and fill: a simple funnel-plot–based method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in metaanalysis. Biometrics 2000; 56: 455-463
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Howell DA, Dy RM, Hanson BL. et al. Endoscopic treatment of pancreatic duct stones using a 10F pancreatoscope and electrohydraulic lithotripsy. Gastrointest Endosc 1999; 50: 829-833
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Fishman DS, Tarnasky PR, Patel SN. et al. Management of pancreaticobiliary disease using a new intra-ductal endoscope: the Texas experience. World J Gastroenterol 2009; 15: 1353-1358
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Alatawi A, Leblanc S, Vienne A. et al. Pancreatoscopy-guided intracorporeal laser lithotripsy for difficult pancreatic duct stones: a case series with prospective follow-up (with video). Gastrointest Endosc 2013; 78: 179-183
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Attwell AR, Patel S, Kahaleh M. et al. ERCP with per-oral pancreatoscopy-guided laser lithotripsy for calcific chronic pancreatitis: a multicenter U.S. experience. Gastrointest Endosc 2015; 82: 311-318
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Ito K, Igarashi Y, Okano N. et al. Efficacy of combined endoscopic lithotomy and extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy, and additional electrohydraulic lithotripsy using the SpyGlass direct visualization system or X-ray guided EHL as needed, for pancreatic lithiasis. Biomed Res Int 2014; 2014: 732781
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Navaneethan U, Hasan MK, Kommaraju K. et al. Digital, single-operator cholangiopancreatoscopy in the diagnosis and management of pancreatobiliary disorders: a multicenter clinical experience (with video). Gastrointest Endosc 2016; 84: 649-655
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Brewer Gutierrez OI, Raijman I, Shah RJ. et al. Safety and efficacy of digital single-operator pancreatoscopy for obstructing pancreatic ductal stones. Endosc Int Open 2019; 7: E896-E903
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Gerges C, Pullmann D, Bahin F. et al. SpyGlass DS-guided lithotripsy for pancreatic duct stones in symptomatic treatment-refractory chronic calcifying pancreatitis. Endosc Int Open 2019; 7: E99-E103
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Han S, Shah RJ, Brauer BC. et al. A comparison of endoscopic retrograde pancreatography with or without pancreatoscopy for removal of pancreatic duct stones. Pancreas 2019; 48: 690-697
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Ogura T, Okuda A, Imanishi M. et al. Electrohydraulic lithotripsy for pancreatic duct stones under digital single-operator pancreatoscopy (with video). Dig Dis Sci 2019; 64: 1377-1382
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Awadallah NS, Chen YK, Piraka C. et al. Is there a role for cholangioscopy in patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis?. Am J Gastroenterol 2006; 101: 284-291
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Ramchandani M, Reddy DN, Lakhtakia S. et al. Per oral cholangiopancreatoscopy in pancreatico biliary diseases--expert consensus statements. World J Gastroenterol 2015; 21: 4722-4734
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Xu MM, Kahaleh M. Recent developments in choledochoscopy: technical and clinical advances. Clin Exp Gastroenterol 2016; 9: 119-124
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Karagyozov P, Boeva I, Tishkov I. Role of digital single-operator cholangioscopy in the diagnosis and treatment of biliary disorders. World J Gastrointest Endosc 2019; 11: 31-40
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Parsi MA. Direct peroral cholangioscopy. World J Gastrointest Endosc 2014; 6: 1-5
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Sievert Jr. CE, Silvis SE. Evaluation of electrohydraulic lithotripsy as a means of gallstone fragmentation in a canine model. Gastrointest Endosc 1987; 33: 233-235
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Hochberger J, Gruber E, Wirtz P. et al. Lithotripsy of gallstones by means of a quality-switched giant-pulse neodymium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet laser. Basic in vitro studies using a highly flexible fiber system. Gastroenterology 1991; 101: 1391-1398
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Manes G, Paspatis G, Aabakken L. et al. Endoscopic management of common bile duct stones: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) guideline. Endoscopy 2019; 51: 472-491
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar