Advances in biliary stone management: Latest-generation extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy vs laser lithotripsy for difficult bile duct stones

Table 1 Comparison of baseline characteristics of patients among the two groups

	ESWL group (n = 387)	LL group (n = 71)	P value
Mean age, years	53.8 ± 15.7	55.0 ± 15.4	0.49
Males/females, %	58.7/41.3	64.8/35.2	0.20
Number of CBD stones: 1/2/multiple, %	46.8/3.4/49.8	50.7/5.6/43.6	0.30
Mirrizzi syndrome	35 (9.0)	7 (9.9)	0.40

Data are presented as mean ± SD or n (%). ESWL: Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy; CBD: Common bile duct; LL: Laser lithotripsy.

Table 2 Success rate and efficacy of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and laser lithotripsy in patients with difficult bile duct stones

	ESWL (n = 387)	LL (n = 71)	P value
CBD clearance	368 (95.0)	69 (97.2)	0.4
Number of sessions of ESWL/LL	2.1 ± 1.3	1.4 ± 0.7	0.2
Number of ERCP sessions required	2.1 ± 0.6	2.3 ± 0.7	0.9

Data are presented as mean ± SD or n (%). CBD: Common bile duct; ESWL: Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy; LL: Laser lithotripsy; ERCP: Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography.

Table 3 Comparison of the complication rate with extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and laser lithotripsy in patients with difficult bile duct stones

Complications	ESWL (n = 387)	LL (n = 71)	P value
Overall	11 (2.8)	3(4.2)	0.3
Cholangitis	3 (0.8)	2 (2.8)
Post-sphincterotomy bleed	4 (1.0)	0
Pancreatitis	4 (1.0)	1 (1.4)

Data are presented as n (%). ESWL: Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy; LL: Laser lithotripsy.