Baishideng Publishing Group Inc, 7041 Koll Center Parkway, Suite 160, Pleasanton, CA 94566, USA
Share the Article
Guo SB, Meng H, Duan ZJ, Li CY. Small sphincterotomy combined with endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation vs sphincterotomy alone for removal of common bile duct stones. World J Gastroenterol 2014; 20(47): 17962-17969 [PMID: 25548495 DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v20.i47.17962]
World J Gastroenterol. Dec 21, 2014; 20(47): 17962-17969 Published online Dec 21, 2014. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v20.i47.17962
Small sphincterotomy combined with endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation vs sphincterotomy alone for removal of common bile duct stones
Shi-Bin Guo, Hua Meng, Zhi-Jun Duan, Chun-Yan Li
Shi-Bin Guo, Department of Gastroenterological Endoscopy, the First Affiliated Hospital of Dalian Medical University, Dalian 116011, Liaoning Province, China
Hua Meng, Zhi-Jun Duan, Chun-Yan Li, Department of Gastroenterology, the First Affiliated Hospital of Dalian Medical University, Dalian 116011, Liaoning Province, China
Author contributions: Guo SB and Duan ZJ designed the study; Meng H and Li CY collected and analyzed the data; Guo SB wrote the manuscript; Guo SB and Meng H contributed equally to the study; all authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Correspondence to: Shi-Bin Guo, MD, PhD, Department of Gastroenterological Endoscopy, the First Affiliated Hospital of Dalian Medical University, No. 222 Zhongshan road, Xigang district, Dalian 116011, Liaoning Province, China. gsb@dl.cn
Telephone: +86-411-83635963 Fax: +86-411-83632383
Received: April 23, 2014 Revised: July 13, 2014 Accepted: August 13, 2014 Published online: December 21, 2014 Processing time: 241 Days and 0.3 Hours
Core Tip
Core tip: Endoscopic papillary large diameter balloon dilation (EPLBD) after limited endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) is an effective and safe endoscopic approach to remove large or multiple common bile duct stones. Compared with EST alone, the rate of bleeding and recurrence of CBD stones were significantly lower in the EST + EPLBD group (1.6% vs 5.6%, P < 0.05; 1.6% vs 6.7%, P < 0.05, respectively). While the rates of overall stone removal and stone removal in the first session (96.9% vs 94.4%, P > 0.05; 90.6% vs 88.8%, P > 0.05, respectively) and the rates of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis and hyperamylasemia were not significantly different between the two groups (4.7% vs 4.5%, P > 0.05; 10.9% vs 10.1%, P > 0.05, respectively).
