Which Is the Better Treatment for the Removal of Large Biliary Stones? Endoscopic Papillary Large Balloon Dilation versus Endoscopic Sphincterotomy
Department of Internal Medicine and Liver Research Institute, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
Abstract
Background/Aims
We evaluated the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation (EPLBD) for large common bile duct (CBD) stone removal compared with endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST).
Methods
A total of 1,580 patients who underwent endoscopic CBD stone extraction between January 2001 and July 2010 were reviewed. The following inclusion criteria were applied: choledocholithiasis treated by EPLBD with minor EST or EST with mechanical lithotripsy; and follow-up >9 months after treatment.
Results
Forty-nine patients with EPLBD and 41 with EST were compared. There was no significant difference in the complication rates and stone recurrence rates between the two groups. However, significantly more endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) sessions were required in the EST group to achieve the complete removal of stones (1.7 times vs 1.3 times; p=0.03). The mean cost required for complete stone removal per patient was significantly higher in the EST group compared to the EPLBD group (USD $1,644 vs $1,225, respectively; p=0.04). Dilated CBD was the only significant factor associated with recurrent biliary stones (relative risk, 1.09; 95% confidence interval, 1.02 to 1.17; p=0.02).
Conclusions
EPLBD is the better treatment (compared to EST) for removing large CBD stones because EPLBD requires fewer ERCP sessions and is less expensive.
Untitled section
Keywords: Choledocholithiasis, Endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation, Sphincterotomy, endoscopic, Mechanical lithotripsy
Article notes
Untitled section
Received 2013 Jul 7; Revised 2013 Aug 14; Accepted 2013 Aug 21; Issue date 2014 Jul.
INTRODUCTION
Endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) is the commonly used endoscopic technique to remove common bile duct (CBD) stones.1 However, EST carries an 8% to 12% risk of acute complications such as pancreatitis, cholangitis, bleeding, and perforation.2,3 Therefore, endoscopic papillary balloon dilation (EPBD) using balloon diameters of 6 to 10 mm was developed as an alternative method to EST to lower the acute complications risk by causing less trauma to the biliary sphincter.4 EPBD is a safe and effective technique for removal of small to moderate sized stones, but it is inappropriate for removal of larger stones since EPBD does not enlarge the bile duct opening to the same extent as EST.3 Thus, endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation (EPLBD) using balloon diameters of 12 to 20 mm combined with EST was introduced for removal of large CBD stones.5 However, EPLBD was not fully accepted for the risk of potentially serious adverse events, such as pancreatitis and bile duct perforation.6–8 There are still many controversies in safety issues using EPLBD, and recently multicenter studies and meta-analysis reported that EPLBD is a safe and effective therapeutic approach for retrieval of large stones.7,9,10
Considering long-term outcome, EPBD can be better treatment of choice for extracting CBD stones since it still preserves the function of sphincter muscle than EST in theory. Preserving sphincter muscle would be more beneficial to prevent recurrent biliary stones since subsequent duodenobiliary reflux and bacterial contamination are known to increase the tendency of recurrence.11–14 However, there is no report about the physiologic and anatomical changes of the sphincter after EPLBD. Recent retrospective studies reported that the recurrence rate of choledocholithiasis was similar between EPLBD with limited EST and EST alone groups.15,16 However, these studies have some pitfalls which underestimated the preventive efficacy of recurrent stones by EPLBD since they did not take it account the fact that the patients who underwent EPLBD were more likely to have larger stones which could affect the biliary stone recurrence rate.17,18 Stefanidis et al.19 reported that EST with EPLBD was equally effective as EST with mechanical lithotripsy (ML) for the removal of large CBD stones, and EPLBD was associated with fewer complications. Although this was a well-designed prospective randomized study, it was stopped before reaching full enrollment because the interim analysis showed a significant difference in postendoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) cholangitis in favor of patients subjected to EPLBD. Thus, there is a substantial possibility of a type II error. Also, the comparison of cost-effectiveness for complete stone removal and recurrence rate of choledocholithiasis between the two methods was not mentioned. Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of EPLBD for preventing recurrence of choledocholithiasis in comparison with EST and analyze the cost-effectiveness for removal of large CBD stone between EPLBD and EST. Furthermore, we investigated the risk factors predicting recurrence of biliary stones.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
1. Patients
A total of 1,580 patients who underwent endoscopic biliary stone extraction at Seoul National University Hospital from January 2001 through July 2010 were retrospectively reviewed. Eligible patients for this study were defined as the followings: 1) choledocholithiasis was treated by EPLBD with minor EST or EST with ML, 2) follow-up period more than 9 months after complete stone removal. A total of 90 patients treated for their large CBD stones by EPLBD or EST with ML were finally enrolled in this study. Endoscopic and fluoroscopic findings, laboratory results, procedure-related complication rate and recurrence rate of choledocholithiasis were compared according to different type of technical approaches for the removal of CBD stones. This study protocol was approved by the institutional review board of Seoul National University Hospital.
2. Endoscopic procedures
ERCP was performed with standard side-viewing duodenoscopes (TJF-200, TJF-240, and TJF-260; Olympus, Tokyo, Japan) under conscious sedation with midazolam (2 to 5 mg) and meperidine (25 to 50 mg). After CBD stones were identified with cholangiogram, EST with standard pull-type papillotome was performed according to the standard technique (Fig. 1). The size and extent of EST was done with discretion of attending endoscopist. Supplementary EPLBD was done if stone size was too large to extract through biliary orifice or discrepancy of stone size and distal bile duct diameter was present. Balloon dilation was then performed with CRETM wire-guided balloon dilator (Boston Scientific, Natick, MA, USA) with maximum sizes of 12, 15, 18, or 20 mm placed across the papilla among the patients with minor EST. The balloon was gradually inflated with diluted contrast medium until it was estimated to be of adequate size to allow for stone removal under endoscopic and fluoroscopic control. The inflation was maintained for 30 to 60 seconds after the balloon reached an appropriate size. The maximal diameter of balloon did not exceed the maximal diameter of CBD to prevent perforation. EPLBD without EST was avoided due to the risk of extensive perforation or pancreatitis. Although it is still controversial that partial EST before EPLBD is necessary, minor EST before balloon dilation might decrease the risk of pancreatitis since EST prior EPLBD results in separation between pancreatic and biliary orifices, and the force exerted by the dilating balloon is directed more toward the bile duct than the pancreatic orifice after EST.5,6 Another advantage of minor EST before EPLBD is direct observation of the remaining intact papillary roof during gradual balloon inflation, which can help to avoid perforation.20
If stone clearance could not be achieved using stone extraction baskets and/or stone retrieval balloons, the stones were fragmented using ML. Complete stone removal was documented by the absence of any filling defect with a final cholangiogram. Biliary stent or nasobiliary tube was placed if complete stone removal was not achieved, and repeated ERCP was done until complete stone removal. Complications during ERCP and other relevant endoscopic findings such as periampullary diverticula were recorded in detail. Bleeding was defined by clinical parameters and by decision of clinicians not just by endoscopic evidence of bleeding. Post-ERCP pancreatitis was diagnosed on the basis of new onset or worsening abdominal pain and an increase of serum amylase and lipase levels at least three times greater than the normal upper limit, within 24 hours after procedure. Post-ERCP cholangitis was diagnosed on the basis of increased body temperature (>38°C) over 24 hours with abdominal pain. Perforation was defined by the presence of free air or contrast leakage in radiologic exams as well as clinical course of the patients. Severity of each complication was evaluated using established consensus criteria.21
3. Estimation of physical findings of CBD stone and cost of medical expenses
Stone size and number were documented on cholangiogram during the initial ERCP. Maximal diameter of biliary stone and CBD were measured from the relation of the diameter of duodenoscope on cholangiogram.
The total cost for the treatment of choledocholithiasis was defined as the sum of the cost of ERCP, EST, ML, EPLBD, and biliary stent. Each price of the procedures (including device fee) and devices were approximated: ERCP $224, repeat ERCP within 15 days $113, guide wire $118, EST $227, ML $397, trapezoid basket $231, EPLBD $313, EPBD $186, stone extraction basket $256, stone retrieval balloon $166, and biliary plastic stent $47.
4. Follow-up
Follow-up after initial ERCP was based on outpatient clinic. Additional work-ups such as computed tomography and/or ERCP were done if it was necessary with recurrence of symptoms or signs. Recurrence of choledocholithiasis was defined as newly detected CBD stones on images taken at least 6 months apart from the complete removal of previous CBD stones.
5. Statistical analysis
Categorical and binary variables were tested using chi-square test or Fisher exact test according to the treatment. Student t-test or Mann-Whitney U test were used for continuous variables. Recurrence was compared using Kaplan-Meier method with log-rank test. Potential risk factors for stone recurrence were initially assessed by univariate analysis. Multivariate analysis was performed on factors with associated p-values of <0.25 by univariate analysis and Cox proportional hazard model was used in multivariate analysis to identify independent factors associated with recurrence. Data are presented as mean±standard error of the mean or median (range) wherever appropriate. A p<0.05 was considered statistically significant. All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS version 18.0 (IBM Co., Armonk, NY, USA).
RESULTS
The median age of study patients was 69 years old (range, 38 to 92 years old) at the time of initial diagnosis, and there were 45 males and 45 females (Table 1). Successful removal of CBD stone was achieved in 49 patients using EPLBD and in 41 patients using EST with ML. Female was significantly predominant in EPLBD group compared to EST with ML group. There was no significant difference in size and number of stones and maximal diameter of CBD between the two groups (EPLBD vs EST groups). ML was more frequently performed in EST group (41 patients) than in EPLBD group (14 patients): 100% versus 29%; p=0.001 (Table 2). Among EPLBD group, 14 patients who underwent ML had significantly larger biliary stones than rest of 35 patients who did not (21.6±1.3 mm vs 14.5±0.9 mm; p<0.001). Endoscopic biliary stent was more frequently placed in EST group compared to EPLBD group (51% vs 20%; p=0.002).
| Characteristic | Endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation (n=49) | Endoscopic sphincterotomy (n=41) | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age, yr | 68 (38–92) | 72 (49–89) | 0.28 |
| Gender, male/female | 31/18 | 14/27 | 0.006 |
| Median follow-up, mo | 48 (12–87) | 33 (10–130) | 0.29 |
| Initial bilirubin, mg/dL | 3.9±0.8 | 3.7±0.7 | 0.59 |
| Initial ALP, IU/L | 246±40 | 264±45 | 0.72 |
| Stone diameter, mm | 16.5±0.9 | 16.8±0.8 | 0.80 |
| Stone no. | 2 (1–14) | 3 (1–25) | 0.26 |
| Impacted stone | 9 (18) | 8 (20) | 0.89 |
| Duct diameter, mm | 20.9±0.7 | 20.7±0.9 | 0.90 |
| Periampullary diverticula | 20 (41) | 17 (41) | 0.95 |
| Lithotripsy | 14 (29) | 41 (100) | <0.001 |
| Biliary endoprosthesis | 10 (20) | 21 (51) | 0.002 |
| Early complications | 4 (8) | 4 (10) | >0.99 |
| GB status | 0.24 | ||
| Acalculous GB | 15 (31) | 13 (32) | |
| Calculous GB | 11 (22) | 15 (36) | |
| Prior cholecystectomy | 23 (47) | 13 (32) |
| Endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation (n=49) | Endoscopic sphincterotomy (n=41) | p-value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lithotripsy | 14 (29) | 41 (100) | <0.001 |
| Biliary endoprosthesis | 10 (20) | 21 (51) | 0.002 |
| Early complications | 4 (8) | 4 (10) | >0.99 |
There was no treatment related mortality and there were eight patients (9%) who experienced minor procedure-related adverse events. There were four patients with complications in EPLBD (8%) and in EST (10%) group each and the complication rate was not significantly different between the two groups (p>0.99): three minor bleeding in EPLBD group, three acute pancreatitis in EST group, one acute cholangitis in EPLBD group and one CBD perforation in EST group. Bleeding was more common in EPLBD group (6% vs 0%; p=0.25), whereas post-ERCP pancreatitis occurred more common in EST group (7% vs 0%; p=0.09). All the procedure-related adverse events were improved after conservative management.
Complete stone removal at first ERCP session was achieved in 62 patients (69%): 38 patients (78%) in EPLBD group and 24 patients (59%) in EST group (p=0.05). There were 11 patients (22%) who required repeated sessions of ERCP for complete removal of CBD stones in EPLBD group: twice in eight patients and three times in three patients. On the other hand, there were 17 patients (41%) who required repeated sessions of ERCP for complete removal of CBD stones in EST group: twice in nine patients, three times in six patients, four times in one patient and seven times in one patient. Repeated sessions of ERCP were significantly required in EST group than in EPLBD group to achieve complete removal of biliary stones (1.7±0.2 times vs 1.3±0.1 times; p=0.03). The cholecystectomy was done in eight patients (31%) among 26 patients with calculous gallbladder after CBD stone removal.
Choledocholithiasis recurred in 26 patients (29%) during median follow-up of 45.1 months (range, 10.2 to 129.5 months): 15 patients (31%) and 11 patients (27%) in EPLBD and EST group respectively, and there was no statistically significant difference in cumulative incidence of recurrences (p=0.86) (Fig. 2). Interestingly, maximum diameter of recurred stone during follow-up period tended to be larger after EST than after EPLBD (16.4±1.9 mm vs 13.4±1.1 mm; p=0.18). Therefore, four patients in EST group eventually underwent EPLBD for recurred stone removal. In addition, most of the recurred stones always have been brown pigmented in both groups (87% in EPLBD and 100% in EST, p=0.49). The total number of recurrences during follow-up period was also higher after EST without significant difference (1.9±0.5 vs 1.3±0.2; p=0.31).
The mean amount of costs required for the complete stone removal per patient was significantly higher in EST group than in EPLBD group (USD $1,644 vs $1,225; p=0.04). Besides, costs for the treatment of recurrent biliary stones were $947 and $1,684 in EPLBD and EST group, respectively (p=0.19).
Possible risk factors related with biliary stone recurrence, including age, gender, largest diameter and number of stone, stone impaction, CBD diameter, periampullary diverticula, EPLBD, lithotripsy, biliary endoprosthesis, early complication, and gallbladder status were evaluated (Table 3). CBD diameter was the only significant factor predicting recurrent biliary stones among the above variables. The recurrence rate was 40% when the maximum CBD diameter was more than 20 mm, whereas the recurrence rate was 18% when the maximum CBD diameter was 20 mm or less than 20 mm (p=0.03). Multivariate analysis was done with the following factors: number of stone, size of stone, lithotripsy and biliary endoprosthesis. The most significant factor associated with recurrent biliary stones was dilation of CBD (relative risk, 1.09; 95% confidence interval, 1.02 to 1.17; p=0.02) (Table 4).
| Factor | No. | Recurrence | RR (95% CI) | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age, yr | 0.53 | |||
| ≤70 | 46 | 13 | 1 | |
| >70 | 44 | 13 | 1.28 (0.59–2.77) | |
| Gender | 0.61 | |||
| Male | 45 | 12 | 1 | |
| Female | 45 | 14 | 1.23 (0.57–2.65) | |
| Stone diameter, mm | 0.26 | |||
| ≤15 | 33 | 8 | 1 | |
| >15 | 57 | 18 | 1.62 (0.70–3.73) | |
| Stone no. | 0.22 | |||
| 1 | 30 | 7 | 1 | |
| ≥2 | 60 | 19 | 1.70 (0.71–4.07) | |
| Impacted stone | 0.93 | |||
| Absent | 73 | 21 | 1 | |
| Present | 17 | 5 | 1.05 (0.39–2.79) | |
| Diameter of common bile duct, mm | 0.03 | |||
| ≤20 | 45 | 8 | 1 | |
| >20 | 45 | 18 | 2.42 (1.05–5.56) | |
| Periampullary diverticula | 0.88 | |||
| Absent | 53 | 16 | 1 | |
| Present | 37 | 10 | 1.06 (0.48–2.34) | |
| Endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation | 0.86 | |||
| No | 41 | 11 | 1 | |
| Yes | 49 | 15 | 0.93 (0.43–2.04) | |
| Lithotripsy | 0.15 | |||
| No | 35 | 8 | 1 | |
| Yes | 55 | 18 | 1.83 (0.79–4.23) | |
| Biliary endoprosthesis | 0.21 | |||
| No | 59 | 16 | 1 | |
| Yes | 31 | 10 | 1.65 (0.74–3.68) | |
| Early complications | 0.37 | |||
| No | 82 | 25 | 1 | |
| Yes | 8 | 1 | 0.41 (0.06–3.04) | |
| GB status | 0.37 | |||
| Cholecystectomy or acalculous GB | 72 | 20 | 1 | |
| Calculous GB without cholecystectomy | 18 | 6 | 1.53 (0.61–3.85) |
| Variable | RR (95% CI) | p-value |
|---|---|---|
| Stone no. (≥2) | 1.67 (0.68–4.08) | 0.26 |
| Duct diameter | 1.09 (1.02–1.17) | 0.01 |
| Lithotripsy | 1.24 (0.51–3.02) | 0.63 |
| Biliary endoprosthesis | 1.73 (0.72–4.13) | 0.22 |
DISCUSSION
It has been very well known that recurrent biliary stone is the most common late complication after biliary stone removal with EST or EPLBD.1 However, there are few studies comparing recurrence rate of biliary stones according to the techniques (EPLBD and EST) used for removal of large CBD stones. We have assumed that EPLBD would have somewhat advantage over EST to prevent recurrent biliary stones because EPLBD does not cut and ablate sphincter muscle like EST at the beginning of this study. However, the results of this study showed that EPLBD was not superior to EST for the prevention of biliary stone recurrence. On the other hand, EPLBD can be preferred in terms of requiring less session of repeated ERCPs compared to EST, and ultimately EPLBD was more cost-effective in the end. The recent randomized trial comparing EPLBD with EST also showed that the overall cost was significantly reduced in EPLBD group.22 The size of recurrent stone was also larger in EST group without significant differences, and it may be due to the small number of patients with a recurrence as a whole.
Small CBD stones can be easily extracted after EPBD, whereas large stones are hard to extract and often need ML.23 Thus, we can easily expect that the most patients who underwent EPLBD or ML have large biliary stones. In that reason, it can be said that the size of CBD stones are similar between EPBLD and EST with ML groups. Therefore, we compared the recurrence rate between the two groups using EPLBD or EST with ML to remove CBD stones. As we expected, there was no significant difference in the maximum diameter of CBD stone between the two groups and we could truly compare the recurrence rate between the two groups.
Biliary endoprosthesis was done in 31 patients at initial ERCP and it was more significantly frequent in EST group compared to EPLBD group (51% vs 20%; p=0.002). This result showed another aspect that there were more residual stones in EST with ML group and obviously EST group required multiple sessions of repeated ERCPs to achieve complete removal of CBD stones. There were 14 patients (29%) who underwent additional ML to remove CBD stones in EPLBD group and their mean diameter of CBD stone was greater than 20 mm. Also, the authors would like to mention that we have policies not to use diameter larger than 20 mm during EPBLD procedure in our institution. Therefore, they were treated with ML after EPLBD. Since we compared EPLBD versus EST with ML for removal of large CBD stones, it is hard to convince that EPLBD reduces the need for ML for removal of large stones based on the results of this study. However, only 29% of patients in EPLBD group required ML and this finding is in consistent with previous randomized trial.22
The early complication rate after EPLBD is known to be around 4% to 14% and it was 8% in this study which was in accordance with previous report.7,8,24,25 In addition, EST is known to carry an 8% to 12% risk of early complications,3 and we found that ours was 10%. Bleeding was the most common complication occurred 6% of patients after EPLBD, whereas there was no post-ERCP pancreatitis after EPLBD. While pancreatitis was an early concern with EPLBD, the rates have proven to be low and recent study suggested that direct physical compression by large size balloons is not a major factor in the etiology of pancreatitis following EPLBD.10 Adequate dilation of the papilla with EPLBD may reduce the trauma to the papilla during stone removal, which results in lower incidence of pancreatitis. Another reason of no post-ERCP pancreatitis in EPLBD group is that minor EST was always done before EPLBD in our study. It has been reported that minimal EST before LBD decreases the risk of pancreatitis.5 Conversely, post-ERCP pancreatitis was more common in EST group since every patient in EST group underwent ML in present study. ML may trigger papillary edema or spasm that may obstruct the pancreatic duct orifice.26,27
Bile duct stones most commonly have their origin in the CBD as primary stones rather than in the gallbladder with secondary descent into the bile duct.28 Also, most of the recurred stones in this study were brown pigment stones which represent formation of stones in the CBD due to bile infection by duodenobiliary reflux.17,29,30 Thus, there was no significant difference of stone recurrence regardless of cholecystectomy.
The incidence of biliary stone recurrence during follow-up was 29%, which was higher than previous studies.1,31,32 It may be due to patients with large biliary stones were enrolled in present study. ML was performed in 55 patients (61%) and there was a possibility of remnant small stone fragments after ML may act as a nidus for recurrent stones.33 Besides, it could be thought that the migrating stones from gallbladder might increase the recurrence rate. However, there was no significant difference in stone recurrence according to the status of gallbladder in present study.
CBD dilation was the single most significant factor associated with recurrence of CBD stones in multivariate analysis and this result was in consistent with previous reports.16,34 A dilated CBD results in bile stasis and bacterial infection, which play an essential role in the formation of pigment stones.29,30,34 In addition, it is possible that small fragmented stones were more likely to be missed with cholangiogram in patients with a dilated CBD.16
The main limitation of our study was the retrospective data collection and analyses. However, we compared the patients who underwent EPLBD with the patients who underwent EST and ML to minimize the discrepancy of stone natures between the two groups. The other limitation was that relatively small number of patients was enrolled in this study. However, follow-up of patients with choledocholithiasis is difficult because most patients become free from symptoms after stone removal and leave medical institutions. We had performed endoscopic biliary stone extraction in 1,580 patients during almost 10 years and begun to perform EPLBD for stone removal since 2004. However, only 90 patients could be enrolled in this study due to lack of follow-up. In the future, long-term follow-up study with CBD stone cohort will be required to identify the efficacy of EPLBD for prevention of recurrent stones and the risk factors of stone recurrence after EPLBD.
We could find out that EPLBD was not superior to EST for prevention of recurrent biliary stones and dilated CBD was the only significant factor predicting the recurrence of CBD stones. Here, we would like to address that EPLBD is the better treatment of choice than EST to remove large CBD stones since EPLBD required less number of ERCP sessions with cheaper costs. Further investigations with larger number of patients in prospective studies would give us more insights to figure out the best management in treatment of patients with large CBD stones.
Footnotes
Footnote Group
REFERENCES
Untitled section
References
- 1.Freeman ML, Nelson DB, Sherman S, et al. Complications of endoscopic biliary sphincterotomy. N Engl J Med. 1996;335:909–918. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199609263351301.
- 2.Boender J, Nix GA, de Ridder MA, et al. Endoscopic papillotomy for common bile duct stones: factors influencing the complication rate. Endoscopy. 1994;26:209–216. doi: 10.1055/s-2007-1008945.
- 3.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. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(96)11026-6.
- 4.Mathuna PM, White P, Clarke E, Merriman R, Lennon JR, Crowe J. Endoscopic balloon sphincteroplasty (papillary dilation) for bile duct stones: efficacy, safety, and follow-up in 100 patients. Gastrointest Endosc. 1995;42:468–474. doi: 10.1016/S0016-5107(95)70052-8.
- 5.Ersoz G, Tekesin O, Ozutemiz AO, Gunsar F. Biliary sphincterotomy plus dilation with a large balloon for bile duct stones that are difficult to extract. Gastrointest Endosc. 2003;57:156–159. doi: 10.1067/mge.2003.52.
- 6.Maydeo A, Bhandari S. Balloon sphincteroplasty for removing difficult bile duct stones. Endoscopy. 2007;39:958–961. doi: 10.1055/s-2007-966784.
- 7.Attasaranya S, Cheon YK, Vittal H, et al. Large-diameter biliary orifice balloon dilation to aid in endoscopic bile duct stone removal: a multicenter series. Gastrointest Endosc. 2008;67:1046–1052. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2007.08.047.
- 8.Itoi T, Itokawa F, Sofuni A, et al. Endoscopic sphincterotomy combined with large balloon dilation can reduce the procedure time and fluoroscopy time for removal of large bile duct stones. Am J Gastroenterol. 2009;104:560–565. doi: 10.1038/ajg.2008.67.
- 9.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. doi: 10.1007/s00535-012-0528-9.
- 10.Park SJ, Kim JH, Hwang JC, et al. Factors predictive of adverse events following endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation: results from a multicenter series. Dig Dis Sci. 2013;58:1100–1109. doi: 10.1007/s10620-012-2494-8.
- 11.Gregg JA, De Girolami P, Carr-Locke DL. Effects of sphincteroplasty and endoscopic sphincterotomy on the bacteriologic characteristics of the common bile duct. Am J Surg. 1985;149:668–671. doi: 10.1016/S0002-9610(85)80152-5.
- 12.Greenfield C, Cleland P, Dick R, Masters S, Summerfield JA, Sherlock S. Biliary sequelae of endoscopic sphincterotomy. Postgrad Med J. 1985;61:213–215. doi: 10.1136/pgmj.61.713.213.
- 13.Sand J, Airo I, Hiltunen KM, Mattila J, Nordback I. Changes in biliary bacteria after endoscopic cholangiography and sphincterotomy. Am Surg. 1992;58:324–328.
- 14.Maki T. Pathogenesis of calcium bilirubinate gallstone: role of E. coli, beta-glucuronidase and coagulation by inorganic ions, polyelectrolytes and agitation. Ann Surg. 1966;164:90–100. doi: 10.1097/00000658-196607000-00010.
- 15.Ha DW, Song GA, Kim DU, et al. Recurrent common bile duct stone and endoscopic treatment after endoscopic papillary large balloon dilatation with minor endoscopic sphincterotomy. Korean J Gastroenterol. 2011;57:352–357. doi: 10.4166/kjg.2011.57.6.352.
- 16.Kim KH, Rhu JH, Kim TN. Recurrence of bile duct stones after endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation combined with limited sphincterotomy: long-term follow-up study. Gut Liver. 2012;6:107–112. doi: 10.5009/gnl.2012.6.1.107.
- 17.Ando T, Tsuyuguchi T, Okugawa T, et al. Risk factors for recurrent bile duct stones after endoscopic papillotomy. Gut. 2003;52:116–121. doi: 10.1136/gut.52.1.116.
- 18.Kim JH, Kim YS, Kim DK, et al. Short-term clinical outcomes based on risk factors of recurrence after removing common bile duct stones with endoscopic papillary large balloon dilatation. Clin Endosc. 2011;44:123–128. doi: 10.5946/ce.2011.44.2.123.
- 19.Stefanidis G, Viazis N, Pleskow D, et al. Large balloon dilation vs. mechanical lithotripsy for the management of large bile duct stones: a prospective randomized study. Am J Gastroenterol. 2011;106:278–285. doi: 10.1038/ajg.2010.421.
- 20.Lee DK, Han JW. Endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation: guidelines for pursuing zero mortality. Clin Endosc. 2012;45:299–304. doi: 10.5946/ce.2012.45.3.299.
- 21.Cortas GA, Mehta SN, Abraham NS, Barkun AN. Selective cannulation of the common bile duct: a prospective randomized trial comparing standard catheters with sphincterotomes. Gastrointest Endosc. 1999;50:775–779. doi: 10.1016/S0016-5107(99)70157-4.
- 22.Teoh AY, Cheung FK, Hu B, et al. Randomized trial of endoscopic sphincterotomy with balloon dilation versus endoscopic sphincterotomy alone for removal of bile duct stones. Gastroenterology. 2013;144:341–345. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2012.10.027.
- 23.Kim HG, Cheon YK, Cho YD, et al. Small sphincterotomy combined with endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation versus sphincterotomy. World J Gastroenterol. 2009;15:4298–4304. doi: 10.3748/wjg.15.4298.
- 24.Misra SP, Dwivedi M. Large-diameter balloon dilation after endoscopic sphincterotomy for removal of difficult bile duct stones. Endoscopy. 2008;40:209–213. doi: 10.1055/s-2007-967040.
- 25.Kim TH, Oh HJ, Lee JY, Sohn YW. Can a small endoscopic sphincterotomy plus a large-balloon dilation reduce the use of mechanical lithotripsy in patients with large bile duct stones? Surg Endosc. 2011;25:3330–3337. doi: 10.1007/s00464-011-1720-3.
- 26.Jeong S, Ki SH, Lee DH, et al. Endoscopic large-balloon sphincteroplasty without preceding sphincterotomy for the removal of large bile duct stones: a preliminary study. Gastrointest Endosc. 2009;70:915–922. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2009.04.042.
- 27.Hwang JC, Kim JH, Lim SG, et al. Endoscopic large-balloon dilation alone versus endoscopic sphincterotomy plus large-balloon dilation for the treatment of large bile duct stones. BMC Gastroenterol. 2013;13:15. doi: 10.1186/1471-230X-13-15.
- 28.Madden JL. Common duct stones. Their origin and surgical management. Surg Clin North Am. 1973;53:1095–1113. doi: 10.1016/s0039-6109(16)40139-8.
- 29.Stewart L, Smith AL, Pellegrini CA, Motson RW, Way LW. Pigment gallstones form as a composite of bacterial microcolonies and pigment solids. Ann Surg. 1987;206:242–250. doi: 10.1097/00000658-198709000-00002.
- 30.Kaufman HS, Magnuson TH, Lillemoe KD, Frasca P, Pitt HA. The role of bacteria in gallbladder and common duct stone formation. Ann Surg. 1989;209:584–591. doi: 10.1097/00000658-198905000-00011.
- 31.Lai KH, Peng NJ, Lo GH, et al. Prediction of recurrent choledocholithiasis by quantitative cholescintigraphy in patients after endoscopic sphincterotomy. Gut. 1997;41:399–403. doi: 10.1136/gut.41.3.399.
- 32.Kim DI, Kim MH, Lee SK, et al. Risk factors for recurrence of primary bile duct stones after endoscopic biliary sphincterotomy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2001;54:42–48. doi: 10.1067/mge.2001.115335.
- 33.Sugiyama M, Atomi Y. Risk factors predictive of late complications after endoscopic sphincterotomy for bile duct stones: long-term (more than 10 years) follow-up study. Am J Gastroenterol. 2002;97:2763–2767. doi: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2002.07019.x.
- 34.Costamagna G, Tringali A, Shah SK, Mutignani M, Zuccalà G, Perri V. Long-term follow-up of patients after endoscopic sphincterotomy for choledocholithiasis, and risk factors for recurrence. Endoscopy. 2002;34:273–279. doi: 10.1055/s-2002-23632.