Small sphincterotomy combined with endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation versus sphincterotomy

Table 1 Baseline characteristics of the patients

	Group A (n = 27)	Group B (n = 28)
Gender (M/F)	10/15	11/14
Mean age (yr)1	70.3 ± 8.7	69.8 ± 9.2
Mean diameter of stone (mm)1	20.8 ± 4.1	21.3 ± 5.2
Mean No. of stones1	2.2 ± 1.3	2.3 ± 1.2
Mean diameter of bile duct (mm)1	21.4 ± 6.3	20.5 ± 5.7
Periampullary diverticulum (%)	9 (33.3)	10 (35.7)
Previous cholecystectomy (%)	9 (33.3)	7 (25)
Distal CBD tapering (%)	11 (41)	10 (36)

¹mean ± SD; CBD: Common bile duct.

Table 2 Results of endoscopic stone removal after small EST + ELBD vs EST (stone size ≥ 15 mm)

	Group A (n = 27)	Group B (n = 28)	P value
Stone removal in the first session (%)	23 (85)	23 (86)	0.473
Mechanical lithotripsy (%)	9 (33)	9 (32)	0.527
Mean procedure time (min)12	18 ± 12	19 ± 13	0.917
Mean therapeutic session1	1.27 ± 0.53	1.31 ± 0.71	0.714

¹mean ± SD;

²Calculated from initial success cases (n = 23 in both groups). Overall success rate of the first session: 84%.

Table 3 Comparison of overall application of mechanical lithotripsy according to the size of the stone in each group

	Group A (n = 27)		Group B (n = 28)
	< 2 cm (n = 14)	≥2 cm (n = 13)	< 2 cm (n = 15)	≥2 cm (n = 13)
Stone removal in the first session (%)	12 (85.7)a	11 (84.6)b	13 (86.6)c	10 (76.9)d
Mechanical lithotripsy (%)	2 (14.3)e	7 (53.8)f	2 (13.3)g	7 (53.8)h

Overall application of mechanical lithotripsy: 17/50 (34%). P value: a vs b, not significant; c vs d, not significant; e vs f, 0.018; g vs h, 0.008.

Table 4 Comparison of stone removal in the first session and application of mechanical lithotripsy

	Group A (n = 11)	Group B (n = 10)	P value
Stone removal in the first session (%)	9 (81.8)	7 (70)	0.525
Mechanical lithotripsy (%)	6 (54.5)	6 (60)	0.801