Addition of Mechanical Lithotripsy to Endoscopic Papillary Large Balloon Dilation in Patients with Difficult Common Bile Duct Stones: A Retrospective Single-Center Study.

Introduction: This study aimed to compare the treatment outcomes of endoscopic papillary large-balloon dilation (EPLBD) with and without mechanical lithotripsy (ML) in removing difficult common bile duct stones. Methods: Patients with difficult common bile duct stones treated with EPLBD, with or without ML, at the Eastern Chiba Medical Center between April 2014 and March 2020, were retrospectively evaluated. The rates of cumulative recurrence and complications were compared between the two groups. Results: Overall, 122 patients (n = 44, EPLBD + ML and n = 78, EPLBD) treated by 12 gastroenterologists were included. Patients in the EPLBD + ML group were older (85 years versus 81.5 years) and had larger maximum stone diameter (15 mm versus 12.5 mm) than those in the EPLBD group. Compared with the EPLBD group, the EPLBD + ML group required more endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) procedures (≥2) (86% versus 67%) and longer total ERCP time after reaching the papilla (78.5 minutes versus 25 minutes). Complication rates were not significantly different (9.1% versus 12.8%); however, the cumulative recurrence rates were higher in the EPLBD + ML group than in the EPLBD group (69.4% versus 23.5% at 4 years). Conclusion: Although there were no differences in complication rates, the long-term recurrence rate was higher in the EPLBD + ML group than in the EPLBD group. This study emphasizes the added burden imposed by performing ML during ERCP and suggests that by appropriate case selection, it is possible to treat cases of difficult biliary stones using EPLBD without ML.

Long-term effects of endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation in patients with challenging bile duct calculi: A retrospective observational study.

ABSTRACT: Endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation (EPLBD) can be used to treat challenging common bile duct stones. No previous studies have reported intractable cases treated either by EPLBD or mechanical lithotripter use. We aimed to evaluate and compare the long-term effects of EPLBD with mechanical lithotripter use.This retrospective cohort study reviewed data from 153 patients admitted to the Eastern Chiba Medical Center from April 2014 to March 2020, presenting with common bile duct calculi that could not be removed using a basket or balloon catheter. Patients were divided into groups depending on whether the treatment was performed using a mechanical lithotripter or EPLBD. The primary outcome was the recurrence rate of common bile duct calculi, and the secondary outcome was the rate of postoperative adverse events. The Wilcoxon test was used to compare the 2 groups. Statistical significance was set at P < .05.The median age of patients included in the lithotripter and EPLBD groups were 73 years and 83 years, respectively (P = .006), while the sex ratio (male:female) in the groups was 18:13 and 55:67, respectively. The EPLBD group showed a statistically larger median bile duct diameter (13 mm [range: 8-24 mm] vs 11 mm [range: 5-16 mm]; P < .001), larger maximal calculus diameter (median, 13.5 mm [range: 8-25 mm] vs 11 mm [range: 7-16 mm]; P < .001), and shorter median cumulative treatment time after reaching the duodenal papilla (35.5 minutes [range: 10-176 minutes] vs 47 minutes [range: 22-321 minutes]; P = .026) in comparison to the lithotripter group. There was no significant difference in the rate of adverse events between the EPLBD and the mechanical lithotripter groups. The recurrence rate was significantly lower (P = .014) in the EPLBD group.EPLBD increases therapeutic efficacy and reduces treatment duration for patients in whom calculus removal is difficult, without increasing the frequency of adverse events. No serious adverse events were observed. Additionally, EPLBD appears to reduce the risk of long-term recurrence. Future studies are needed to evaluate long-term outcomes in younger patients.

Prevention of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis by pancreatic duct stenting using a loop-tipped guidewire.

AIM: To examine whether it is possible to prevent the occurrence of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis in patients experiencing difficulties with selective biliary duct cannulation by pancreatic duct stenting using a loop-tipped guidewire. METHODS: Procedure success rate, frequency of unintended insertion of the guidewire into side branches of the pancreatic duct, and incidence of procedural accidents were examined using a loop-tipped guidewire (Group A, 20 patients), and a conventional straight-type guidewire (Group B, 20 patients). RESULTS: The success rate of the procedure was 100% in both groups. Unintended insertion of the guidewire into a side branch of the pancreatic duct occurred 0.056 ± 0.23 (0-1) times in Group A and 2.3 ± 1.84 (0-5) times in Group B; thus, unintended insertion of the guidewire into a side branch of the pancreatic duct was seen significantly less frequently in Group A. There were no procedural accidents in Group A, whereas pancreatitis occurred in one Group B patient; however, the difference between the two groups was not statistically significant. The serum amylase level after ERCP was 257.15 ± 136.4 (88-628) IU/L in Group A, and 552.05 ± 534.57 (101-2389) IU/L in Group B, showing a significantly lower value in Group A. Hyperamylasemia was found in two patients (10%) in Group A, and nine (45%) in Group B, showing a significantly lower value in Group A. CONCLUSION: The results suggest that in patients who experience difficulties with biliary cannulation, the use of a loop-tipped guidewire for pancreatic duct stenting may assist with the prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis, and thereby to a reduction of the risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis or hyperamylasemia.

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

Endoscopic treatment for bile duct stones is low-invasive and currently considered as the first choice of the treatment. For the treatment of bile duct stones, papillary treatment is necessary, and the treatments used at the time are broadly classified into two types; endoscopic papillary balloon dilatation where bile duct closing part is dilated with a balloon and endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) where bile duct closing part is incised. Both procedures have advantages and disadvantages. Golden standard is EST, however, there are patients with difficulty for EST, thus we must select the procedure based on understanding of the characteristics of the procedure, and patient backgrounds.

Current status of preoperative drainage for distal biliary obstruction.

Preoperative biliary drainage (PBD) was developed to improve obstructive jaundice, which affects a number of organs and physiological mechanisms in patients waiting for surgery. However, its role in patients who will undergo pancreaticoduodenectomy for biliary obstruction remains controversial. This article aims to review the current status of the use of preoperative drainage for distal biliary obstruction. Relevant articles published from 1980 to 2015 were identified by searching MEDLINE and PubMed using the keywords "PBD", "pancreaticoduodenectomy", and "obstructive jaundice". Additional papers were identified by a manual search of the references from key articles. Current studies have demonstrated that PBD should not be routinely performed because of the postoperative complications. PBD should only be considered in carefully selected patients, particularly in cases where surgery had to be delayed. PBD may be needed in patients with severe jaundice, concomitant cholangitis, or severe malnutrition. The optimal method of biliary drainage has yet to be confirmed. PBD should be performed by endoscopic routes rather than by percutaneous routes to avoid metastatic tumor seeding. Endoscopic stenting or nasobiliary drainage can be selected. Although more expensive, the use of metallic stents remains a viable option to achieve effective drainage without cholangitis and reintervention.