Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Medicine logoLink to Medicine
. 2021 Mar 19;100(11):e24735. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000024735

The ballooning time in endoscopic papillary balloon dilation for removal of bile duct stones

A systematic review and meta-analysis

Qiang Wang a, Luyao Fu b, Tao Wu a,∗, Xiong Ding c
Editor: Ayse Kefeli
PMCID: PMC7982145  PMID: 33725940

Abstract

Background:

So far, there was no consensus regarding balloon dilation time in endoscopic papillary balloon dilation (EPBD). Thus, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the stone removal and overall complication rates of dilation of short and long duration with EPBD.

Methods:

The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; Cochrane Library), Web of Science, EMBASE Databases, and PubMed were searched from their inception to December 1, 2019 for all articles regarding balloon dilation time in EPBD for removal of bile duct stones. The data were extracted and the methodology quality was assessed. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan5.3 software.

Results:

Four studies involving a total of 1553 patients were included, 918 in the short dilation group and 635 in the long dilation group. The results of meta-analysis showed that there was no significant difference between the 2 different dilation groups in the complete stone removal in randomized controlled trails (RCTs) group (P = .10) and non-RCTs group (P = 0.45), mechanical lithotripsy requirement (RCTs: P = .92; non-RCTs: P = .47), pancreatitis (RCTs: P = .48; non-RCTs: P = .45), bleeding (RCTs: P = .95; non-RCTs: P = .60), infection of biliary (RCTs: P = .58; non-RCTs: P = .29), perforation (RCTs: P = .32; non-RCTs: P = .37).

Conclusion:

This systematic review suggests that there no significant difference in the efficacy and safety of dilation of short and long duration for removal of bile duct stones with EPBD.

Keywords: common bile duct stones, endoscopic papillary balloon dilation, meta-analysis, systematic review

1. Introduction

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) as an alternative treatment for common bile duct stones (CBDS) prior to surgical or percutaneous approaches has become a widely available and routine procedure.[1] Endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) is indicated as standard treatment for bile duct stones during ERCP, as well as for various endoscopic diagnoses and other treatments involving the bile duct[2]; however, EST is associated with adverse events, such as perforation, cholangitis, and bleeding.[3] Because of the serious complications of EST, endoscopic papillary balloon dilation (EPBD) as an alternative for removal of bile duct stones was first reported by Staritz et al[4] in 1982. Two meta-analyses[5,6] found that EPBD results in similar outcomes with respect to overall successful stone removal compared with EST. In addition, EPBD preserves sphincter of Oddi function and decreases hemorrhage and perforation rates.[7,8] Two recent studies[9,10] reported that EPBD reduces the incidence of cholecystitis, cholangitis, and bile duct stone recurrence compared with EST; however, a high risk of pancreatitis following EPBD has been shown in numerous RCT studies.[11–13]

The pancreatitis rate after EPBD ranges from 0% to 15.4% in different studies.[5,6,14] The study reported by Tsujino et al[15] illustrated that dilation of short duration (15 seconds) decreases the tendency for post-procedural pancreatitis than dilation of long duration (2 minutes), and no significant difference (96.6% vs 96.6%) in the efficacy of bile duct stone extraction. Other studies[11–13,16] also recommend dilation of short duration (≤1 minute) to reduce EPBD-associated complications. In contrast, no pancreatitis cases were observed in the studies with dilation of long duration (3 and 5 minutes) conducted by Sato et al[8] and Lin et al.[17] Indeed, those studies showed that there was no consensus regarding balloon dilation time in EPBD. In fact, only one network meta-analysis[18] has focused on the balloon dilation time (dilation of long [>1 minute] and short duration [≤1 minute]) by comparing the EST-associated pancreatitis and overall complication rates reported in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Only one RCT compared dilation of short (1 minute) and long duration (5 minutes) in the meta-analysis.[18] Thus, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the stone removal and overall complication rates of short versus long dilation times. According to the previous studies, dilation <1 minute and ≥1 minute were defined as short and long duration, respectively, in our study.

2. Methods

All analysis results of this study were based on previously published literature and therefore did not require ethical approval or patient consent.

2.1. Search strategy

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; Cochrane Library), Web of Science, EMBASE Databases, and PubMed from the time of inception to December 1, 2019 for all articles using the following terms in the keyword lists, titles, and abstracts: “endoscopic papillary balloon dilation”; “papillary balloon dilation”; “balloon dilation”; “endoscopic dilation”; “dilatation”; “bile duct stones”; “choledocholithiasis”; and “cholelithiasis” without language restriction. The reference lists of the included articles and key reviews were manually searched for additional citations. We attempted to contact the first or corresponding author to obtain additional information if necessary.

2.2. Inclusion criteria

We defined inclusion criteria according to (PICOS), as follows[19]: participants, all patients with bile duct stones who underwent EPBD; interventions and comparisons—comparing dilation of short versus long duration; outcomes—complete stone removal, mechanical lithotripsy, post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP), perforation, biliary tract infection, and hemorrhage; study design, RCTs, or comparative studies. If the duplicate publication reported by the same authors or same population was analyzed in multiple or duplicate studies, the study of higher quality or the most recent study was included; and conference abstracts were excluded because the data between publication of the full paper and the data presented in a previous conference abstract may be different.[20]

2.3. Data extraction and quality assessment

Two of the current study authors independently evaluated the studies retrieved from the database. We excluded apparently irrelevant studies by scrutinizing the titles, abstracts, and full text according to the abovementioned criteria. Disagreements were resolved by discussion or consulting a third author until consensus was achieved.

Two reviewers (QW and TW) independently extracted and summarized the information of the studies, including the following: name of first author, country of origin, year of publication, age and sex of patients, and number of patients; and stone size, complete stone removal, stone removal in the first session, use of mechanical lithotripsy, and complications.

The Cochrane collaboration tool,[21] which includes the adequacy of sequence generation, allocation concealment, binding of participants and personnel, blinding of outcome assessors, incomplete outcome data, selective reporting, and other bias for assessing risk of bias, was used for assessing each RCT (Table 1). Two reviewers (QW and TW) independently assessed the quality score of primary trials according to the Jadad scale.[22] Total scores ranged from 0 to 5. We defined studies as high quality with a Jadad score ≥3 points. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS)[23] was used to assess the quality of non-RCTs. Each study was assigned a score ranging from 1 to 9 points. The study with ≥6 points was considered high quality.

Table 1.

Characteristics of included RCT.

Ref. Sequence generation Allocation concealment Blinding of participants Incomplete outcome Selective outcome Other sources of bias
Bang BW (2010)[31] Unclear Unclear Blinded No missing outcome data All prespecified outcomes reported No
Bang BW (2015)[32] Unclear Unclear Blinded No missing outcome data All prespecified outcomes reported No
Open in a new tab

RCT = randomized controlled trails.

2.4. Data synthesis and statistical analysis

The dichotomous outcomes are reported as the odds ratio (OR) between the experimental and control groups with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Heterogeneity between the included studies was qualitatively evaluated using I2 and Cochran Q.[24] A P-value <.1 or I2 > 50% showed that there was statistically significant heterogeneity across the studies.[24,25] We used a random effect model for calculations of summary estimates and the 95% CIs unless there was no significant heterogeneity, in which case results were confirmed using a fixed effects statistical model. If significant heterogeneity was detected, subgroup and sensitivity analyses were used to explore important clinical differences. Publication bias was evaluated by visual inspection of funnel plot asymmetry as described by Egger et al[26] if necessary. The meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager software (version 5.3; The Nordic Cochrane Centre, Cochrane Collaboration, Copenhagen, Denmark).

3. Results

3.1. Search results and article review

A total of 504 articles were retrieved. After the duplicates were excluded, 310 articles remained. We excluded reviews, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, case reports, and irrelevant studies based on the title or abstract; thus, 40 articles remained. Among the remaining 40 articles, 36 were excluded for the following reasons: not relevant (n = 30); long-term outcomes of 1- versus 5-minutes EPBD (n = 1)[27]; dilation of short versus long duration after sphincterotomy (n = 3)[28–30]; 1 minute versus 5 minutes (n = 1)[14]; <5 minutes versus >5 minutes (n = 1).[35] Finally, 4 studies[15,31–33] were included. The detailed process of selecting relevant articles is shown in Fig. 1.

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

Flow diagram of the search method and selection process.

3.2. Study characteristics

Two of the 4 included studies were RCTs.[31,32] These 2 RCTs compared the efficacy and safety of dilation of short (20 seconds) and long duration (60 seconds). The remaining 2 studies, which compared the efficacy and safety of dilation of short (15 seconds) and long duration (2 or 5 minutes) were non-RCTs.[15,33] Both RCTs and non-RCTs were analyzed separately as subgroups. The quality assessment of 2 RCTs and 2 non-RCTs are shown in Tables 1 and 2, respectively. The detailed outcome data derived from the included studies are shown in Table 3.

Table 2.

Characteristics of included studies.

Ref. Site Time of EPBD Number Short Long M/F Short Long Mean age (y) Short Long Stone size (mm) Short Long Score
Bang BW (2010)[31] Korea 20 s 1 min 35 35 19/16 16/19 66.2 ± 17.4 63.3 ± 13.6 8.2 ± 3.3 8.1 ± 3.5 Jadad: 3
Bang BW (2015)[32] Korea 20 s 1 min 109 119 58/51 74/45 62.0 ± 16.9 63.7 ± 16.6 6.5 ± 2.7 6.9 ± 2.9 Jadad: 3
Takeshi T (2008)[15] Japan 15 s 2 min 324 324 191/133 191/133 70 70 7.1 7.2 NOS: 6
Hakuta R (2017)[33] Japan 15 s 5 min 450 157 272/178 106/51 73.5 75 5 5 NOS: 7
Open in a new tab

EPBD = endoscopic papillary balloon dilation.

Table 3.

Outcome data derived from the included studies n (%).

Ref. EPBD Complete stone removal Stone removal in the first session Mechanical lithotripsy Overall complications Pancreatitis Bleeding Infection of biliary Perforation
Bang BW (2010)[31] 20 s 1 min 35/35 (100) 34/35 (97.1) 31/35 (88.6) 32/35 (91.4) 1/35 (2.9) 1/35 (2.9) 2/35 (5.7) 4/35 (11.4) 2/35 (5.7) 4/35 (11.4) 0/35 (0) 0/35 (0) 0/35 (0) 0/35 (0) 0/35 (0) 0/35 (0)
Bang BW (2015)[32] 20 s 1 min 107/109 (98.1) 112/119 (94.1) 106/109 (97.2) 107/119 (89.9) 3/109 (2.7) 3/119 (2.5) 10/109 (9.2) 13/119 (10.9) 7/109 (6.4) 9/119 (7.5) 1/109 (0.9) 1/119 (0.9) 3/109 (2.7) 2/119 (1.7) 0/109 2/119 (1.7)
Takeshi T (2008)[15] 15 s 2 min 313/324 (96.6) 314/324 (96.9) 203/324 (62.6) 238/324 (73.5) 78/324 (24.1) 86/324 (26.5) 26/324 (8) 40/324 (12.3) 13/324 (4) 24/324 (7.4) 1/324 (0.3) 0/324 (0) 11/324 (3.4) 14/324 (4.3) 1/324 (0.3) 2/324 (0.6)
Hakuta R (2017)[33] 15 s 5 min 438/450 (97.3) 156/157 (99.4) 327/450 (72.7) 135/157 (86) 90/450 (20) 13/157 (8.3) 59/450 (13.1) 21/157 (13.4) 40/450 (8.9) 13/157 (8.3) 1/450 (0.2) 0/157 (0) 18/450 (4) 9/157 (5.7) 1/450 (0.2) 1/157 (0.6)
Open in a new tab

EPBD = endoscopic papillary balloon dilation.

3.3. Efficacy

3.3.1. Complete stone removal

Four studies reported complete stone removal. No apparent heterogeneity (I2 = 33%, P = .22 and I2 = 0%, P = .97) was detected based on a meta-analysis of the 2 groups. Therefore, the fixed effects model analysis was used. No statistical difference existed between the 2 different dilation groups with respect to complete stone removal (RCTs: OR = 3.29, 95% CI = 0.79–13.75, P = .10; non-RCTs: OR = 0.63, 95% CI = 0.19–2.10, P = .45; Fig. 2).

Figure 2.

Figure 2

Open in a new tab

Forest plot on the complete stone removal comparing short dilation group and long dilation group.

3.3.2. Stone removal in the first session

Four studies reported stone removal in the first session. Heterogeneity (I2 = 63%, P = .10) was shown based on a meta-analysis of the RCT group, thus a random-effect model was used. No heterogeneity (I2 = 18%, P = .27) was demonstrated in the non-RCT group. No significant difference existed in the stone removal rate in the first session for the RCT group (OR = 1.81, 95% CI = 0.34–9.52, P = .49). In contrast, the stone removal rate in the first session was greater with dilation of long duration than short duration in the non-RCT group (OR = 0.54, 95% CI = 0.39–0.74, P = .0001; Fig. 3).

Figure 3.

Figure 3

Open in a new tab

Forest plot on the stone removal in the first session comparing short dilation group and long dilation group.

3.3.3. Mechanical lithotripsy requirement rate

Four studies reported the use of mechanical lithotripsy in the process of stone removal. Heterogeneity (I2 = 90%, P = .001) was demonstrated based on a meta-analysis of the non-RCT group, thus a random-effect model was used. No heterogeneity (I2 = 0%, P = .96) was shown in the RCT group. No significant difference existed between the different dilation duration groups with respect to use of mechanical lithotripsy (RCTs: OR = 1.07, 95% CI = 0.26–4.36, P = .92; non-RCTs: OR = 1.52, 95% CI = 0.49–4.70, P = .47; Fig. 4).

Figure 4.

Figure 4

Open in a new tab

Forest plot on mechanical lithotripsy comparing short dilation group and long dilation group.

3.4. Safety

3.4.1. Overall complications

Four studies reported the overall complication rate (pancreatitis, bleeding, biliary tract infection, and perforation). No significant heterogeneity existed in the 2 groups (RCTs: I2 = 0%, P = .58; non-RCTs: I2 = 49%, P = .16). Therefore, we used a fixed-effects model to pool the data. There was no significant difference in the overall complication rate between the 2 different dilation duration groups (RCTs: OR = 0.73, 95% CI = 0.34 to 1.60, P = .44; non-RCTs: OR = 0.77, 95% CI = 0.51–1.16, P = .21; Fig. 5).

Figure 5.

Figure 5

Open in a new tab

Forest plot on overall complications comparing short dilation group and long dilation group.

3.4.2. Pancreatitis

Four studies reported the pancreatitis rate. No significant heterogeneity (I2 = 0%, P = .58) existed in the RCT group; however, heterogeneity (I2 = 55%, P = .14) was demonstrated in the non-RCT group. A random-effect model was used to pool the data. There was no statistical difference between the 2 different dilation duration groups with respect to the post-pancreatitis rate (RCTs: OR = 0.73, 95% CI = 0.30–1.76, P = .48; non-RCTs: OR = 0.76, 95% CI = 0.37–1.55, P = .45; Fig. 6).

Figure 6.

Figure 6

Open in a new tab

Forest plot on pancreatitis comparing short dilation group and long dilation group.

3.4.3. Bleeding

No significant heterogeneity (I2 = 0%, P = .65) existed in the non-RCT group, thus a fixed-effects model was used. There was no significant difference between the 2 different dilation duration groups in the bleeding rate (RCTs: OR = 1.09, 95% CI = 0.07–17.68, P = .95; non-RCTs: OR = 1.84, 95% CI = 0.19–17.66, P = .60; Fig. 7).

Figure 7.

Figure 7

Open in a new tab

Forest plot on bleeding comparing short dilation group and long dilation group.

3.4.4. Biliary tract infection

Four studies reported biliary tract infections. No significant heterogeneity (I2 = 0%, P = .83) existed in the non-RCT group, thus a fixed-effects model was used. There was no significant difference between the 2 different dilation duration groups in the biliary tract infection rate (RCTs: OR = 1.66, 95% CI = 0.27–10.1, P = .58; non-RCTs: OR = 0.73, 95% CI = 0.41–1.31, P = .29; Fig. 8).

Figure 8.

Figure 8

Open in a new tab

Forest plot on infection of biliary comparing short dilation group and long dilation group.

3.4.5. Perforation

Four studies reported perforation rates. No significant heterogeneity (I2 = 0%, P = .85) existed in the non-RCT group, thus a fixed-effects model was used. There was no significant difference between the 2 different dilation duration groups in the perforation rate (RCTs: OR = 0.21, 95% CI = 0.01–4.52, P = .32; non-RCTs: OR = 0.43, 95% CI = 0.07–2.73, P = .37; Fig. 9).

Figure 9.

Figure 9

Open in a new tab

Forest plot on perforation comparing short dilation group and long dilation group.

3.5. Assessment of risk of bias and publication bias

Only 4 studies (<10) were included in this meta-analysis. Thus, we did not assess publication bias using a funnel plot. Therefore, publication bias could not be completely excluded.

4. Discussion

Both EST and EPBD are well-established methods for expanding papillary openings during therapeutic ERCP.[34] In addition, some systematic reviews have shown that EPBD and EST have similar efficacies with respect to stone clearance.[35] Moreover, some previous studies[8,36] indicated that sphincter of Oddi pressure recovers after EPBD alone; however, the current consensus is that EPBD is associated with a lower risk of bleeding and is preferred over EST in patients with a bleeding diathesis[6,13,17,37] because a higher risk of pancreatitis has been reported.[11,16] Recently, some studies compared the risk of pancreatitis at dilation of different duration during EPBD; short dilation (≤1 minute) is recommended because of the lower risk of pancreatitis.[6,11,38] Dilation of different duration (15, 20 seconds, ≥1, 2, <5, and ≥5 minutes) was performed in previous studies; however, additional studies with a focus on a dilation duration <1 and ≥1 minute are warranted.

This is the first meta-analysis involving the efficacy and safety of different dilation duration in EPBD. EPBD in the studies included in our meta-analysis was used alone. Our meta-analysis of 2 RCTs and 2 non-RCTs showed that there was no significant difference in the rate of stone clearance between the 2 different dilation duration groups. Currently, when bile duct stones cannot be removed after balloon dilation, mechanical lithotripsy is required for treatment; however, mechanical lithotripsy is a challenging technique[39,40] because it is difficult to capture stones inside the lithotripter basket in most cases.[41] As a result, the stone fragments created by mechanical lithotripsy are difficult to clear.[39] Therefore, it is necessary to reduce mechanical lithotripsy in ERCP. In our meta-analysis no significant difference was shown in the utility of mechanical lithotripsy in RCTs and non-RCTs. Our meta-analysis of RCTs suggested that dilation of short and long duration achieved equivalent success in stone removal during the first session. There was heterogeneity (I2 = 63%, P = .10) in the RCT group. Because only 2 studies were included in this group, subgroup analysis for heterogeneity could not be performed. A lower rate of stone removal in the first session (88.6% vs 91.4%, P = .48) in the short EPBD group was demonstrated in the study conducted by Bang et al.[31]A higher rate of stone removal during the first session (97% vs 89.9%, P = .052) was reported in the study conducted by Bang et al.[32] The heterogeneity could have originated from the above discrepancy, although this difference was not statistically significant; however, non-RCT studies showed that long EPBD had a significantly high rate of stone removal in the first session with a short dilation duration. According to the non-RCTs, there were 2 possible reasons to account for this difference. First, a sufficiently enlarged orifice of the bile duct potentially eases insertion of endoscopic devices and subsequent stone removal.[33] Second, Tsujino et al[15] attempted to place a biliary stent at the time of lithotripsy. In the meta-analysis of the non-RCT group, significant heterogeneity (I2 = 90%, P = .001) was found. The mechanical lithotripsy rate requirement in the long EPBD group was lower than the short EPBD group in the study conducted by Tsujino et al[15] (8.3% vs 20%, P < .001); however, no significant difference was found in the study conducted by Hakuta et al.[33] This discrepancy may be the main cause of the heterogeneity; however, no significant difference in the rate of stone clearance between the dilation of short and long duration in non-RCTs. Based on our meta-analysis, the efficacy between short and long EPBD was equivalent.

Pancreatitis is a severe complication of ERCP. Previous studies have suggested that dilation duration should be short because direct pancreatic duct compression during balloon dilation leads to pancreatitis.[11,38] Other studies concluded that short dilation duration increases the risk of pancreatitis due to the higher risk of inadequate sphincter loosening.[14,42] Indeed, inadequate sphincter loosening may extend the cannulation and stone removal times, which aggravate papillary edema. In contrast, our meta-analysis indicated that no significant difference in the pancreatitis rate between the dilation of short (RCTs: 6.25%; non-RCTs: 6.06%) and long duration (RCTs: 8.4%; non-RCTs: 7.07%). Unfortunately, only one study[32] involved the cannulation time in our meta-analysis. In this study, the cannulation time was not different between the 2 dilation duration groups (4.6 ± 4.1 minutes vs 4.3 ± 3.4 minutes P = .302). We could not evaluate the effect of cannulation time on the risk of pancreatitis. Heterogeneity (I2 = 55%, P = .14) was found in the non-RCT group. The stone diameter between the short and long EPBD groups was different (P = .005) in the study conducted by Hakuta et al.[33] This discrepancy may be the main cause of heterogeneity.

Bleeding is one of the most common severe adverse events of ERCP.[43] A previous meta-analysis and systematic review suggested that EPBD likely reduces post-ERCP hemorrhage.[41] Although dilation has a risk of tearing the papilla, compression by the balloon may stanch bleeding. In our meta-analysis the rate of bleeding was low in the dilation of short (RCTs: 1/144; non-RCTs: 2/774) and long duration groups (RCTs: 1/154; non-RCTs: 0/481). In addition, no significant difference existed between the 2 dilation duration groups. Biliary tract infection is one of the complications of EPBD. No significant difference existed between the 2 dilation duration groups in our meta-analysis. Perforation is uncommon during balloon dilatation, but can present as a severe and fatal adverse event of ERCP. Our meta-analysis showed that the perforation rate was low in both the dilation of short (RCTs: 0/144; non-RCTs: 2/774) and long duration groups (RCTs: 2/154; non-RCTs: 3/481) and no statistical difference was found between the 2 groups. In general, the safety between dilation of short and long duration was equivalent.

5. Limitations

There were several limitations in our meta-analysis, which should be taken into consideration when interpreting our results. First, the cannulation time was reported in only one study. Thus, we could not evaluate the effect of cannulation time on the risk of pancreatitis. Second, it is unclear whether dilation of short (15 and 20 seconds) and long duration groups (1, 2, and 5 minutes) influenced our results. Third, publication bias, which may influence the reliability of our results, could not be completely excluded. Finally, the small number of RCTs (2) and non-RCTs (2) with a small sample size (RCTs: 144 vs 154; non-RCTs: 774 vs 481) may have led to inherent biases and decreased the robustness of the analysis. Therefore, additional high quality RCTs are needed to assess the efficacy and safety of balloon dilation of different duration during EPBD.

6. Conclusion

There was no significant difference in the efficacy and safety of dilation of short (<1 minute) and long duration (≥1 minute) for removal of bile duct stones with EPBD; however, due to the limited quality of the included studies, additional studies with a large sample size are needed to confirm the above conclusion.

Author contributions

Data curation: Qiang Wang, Luyao Fu.

Formal analysis: Tao Wu, Xiong Ding.

Methodology: Tao Wu.

Software: Xiong Ding.

Writing – original draft: Qiang Wang.

Writing – review & editing: Tao Wu.

Footnotes

Abbreviations: CBDS = common bile duct stones, EPBD = endoscopic papillary balloon dilation, ERCP = endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, EST = endoscopic sphincterotomy, OR = odds ratio, RCT = randomized controlled trails.

How to cite this article: Wang Q, Fu L, Wu T, Ding X. The ballooning time in endoscopic papillary balloon dilation for removal of bile duct stones: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Medicine. 2021;100:11(e24735).

The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article [and its supplementary information files].

References

  • [1].Williams EJ, Green J, Beckingham I, et al. Guidelines on the management of common bile duct stones (CBDS). Gut 2008;57:1004–21. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [2].Shomei R, Takao I, Akio K, et al. Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society guidelines for endoscopic sphincterotomy. Dig Endosc 2018;30:149–73. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [3].Freeman ML, Nelson DB, Sherman S, et al. Complications of endoscopic biliary sphincterotomy. N Engl J Med 1996;335:909–18. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [4].Staritz M, Ewe K, Meyer zum Büschenfelde KH. Endoscopic papillary dilatation, a possible alternative to endoscopic papillotomy. Lancet 1982;1:1306–7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [5].Weinberg BM, Shindy W, Lo S. Endoscopic balloon sphincter dilation (sphincteroplasty) versus sphincterotomy for common bile duct stones. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2006;18:CD004890. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [6].Baron TH, Harewood GC. Endoscopic balloon dilation of the biliary sphincter compared to endoscopic biliary sphincterotomy for removal of common bile duct stones during ERCP: a metaanalysis of randomized, controlled trials. Am J Gastroenterol 2004;99:1455–60. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [7].Hochberger J, Tex S, Maiss J, et al. Management of difficult common bile duct stones. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am 2003;13:623–34. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [8].Sato H, Kodama T, Takaaki J, et al. Endoscopic papillary balloon dilatation may preserve sphincter of Oddi function after common bile duct stone management: evaluation from the viewpoint of endoscopic manometry. Gut 1997;41:541–4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [9].Doi S, Yasuda I, Mukai T, et al. Comparison of long-term outcomes after endoscopic sphincterotomy versus endoscopic papillary balloon dilation: a propensity score-based cohort analysis. J Gastroenterol 2013;48:1090–6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [10].Yasuda I, Fujita N, Maguchi H, et al. Long-term outcomes after endoscopic sphincterotomy versus endoscopic papillary balloon dilation for bile duct stones. Gastrointest Endosc 2010;72:1185–91. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [11].Disario JA, Freeman ML, Bjorkman DJ, et al. Endoscopic balloon dilation compared with sphincterotomy for extraction of bile duct stones. Gastroenterology 2004;127:1291–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [12].Vlavianos P, Chopra K, Mandalia S, et al. Endoscopic balloon dilatation versus endoscopic sphincterotomy for the removal of bile duct stones: a prospective randomised trial. Gut 2003;52:1165–9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [13].Bergman JJ, Rauws EA, Fockens P, et al. Randomised trial of endoscopic balloon dilation versus endoscopic sphincterotomy for removal of bileduct stones. Lancet 1997;349:1124–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [14].Liao WC, Lee CT, Chang CY, et al. Randomized trial of 1-minute versus 5-minute endoscopic balloon dilation for extraction of bile duct stones. Gastrointest Endosc 2010;72:1154–62. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [15].Tsujino T, Kawabe T, Isayama H, et al. Efficacy and safety of low-pressured and short-time dilation in endoscopic papillary balloon dilation for bile duct stone removal. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2008;23:867–71. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [16].Fujita N, Maguchi H, Komatsu Y, et al. Endoscopic sphincterotomy and endoscopic papillary balloon dilatation for bile duct stones: a prospective randomized controlled multicenter trial. Gastrointest Endosc 2003;57:151–5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [17].Lin CK, Lai KH, Chan HH, et al. Endoscopic balloon dilatation is a safe method in the management of common bile duct stones. Dig Liver Dis 2004;36:68–72. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [18].Liao WC, Tu YK, Wu MS, et al. Balloon dilation with adequate duration is safer than sphincterotomy for extracting bile duct stones: a systematic review and meta-analyses. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2012;10:1101–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [19].Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. J Clin Epidemiol 2009;62:e1–34. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [20].Rosmarakis ES, Soteriades ES, Vergidis PI, et al. From conference abstract to full paper: differences between data presented in conferences and journals. FASEB J 2005;19:673–80. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [21].Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gotzsche PC, et al. The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 2011;343:d5928. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [22].Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, et al. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials 1996;17:1–2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [23].Wells GA, Shea BO, Connell D, et al. The Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analysis. Available at: http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.htm. [Accessed May 15, 2015]. [Google Scholar]
  • [24].Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, et al. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 2003;327:557–60. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [25].Higgins JP, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med 2002;21:1539–58. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [26].Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, et al. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ 1997;315:629–34. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [27].Kuo YT, Wang HP, Chang CY, et al. Comparable long-term outcomes of 1-minute vs 5-minute endoscopic papillary balloon dilation for bile duct stones. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2017;15:1768–75. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [28].Shavakhi A, Minakari M, Ardestani MH, et al. A comparative study of one minute versus five seconds endoscopic biliary balloon dilation after small sphincterotomy in choleducolithiasis. Adv Biomed Res 2015;4:28. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [29].Paspatis GA, Konstantinidis K, Tribonias G, et al. Sixty-versus thirty-seconds papillary balloon dilation after sphincterotomy for the treatment of large bile duct stones: a randomized controlled trial. Digest Liver Dis 2013;45:301–4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [30].Konstantinidis K, Tribonias G, Voudoukis E, et al. A prospective randomized comparison of 60-seconds versus 30-seconds endoscopic balloon dilation after endoscopic sphincterotomy for the management of bile duct stones. Gastrointest Endosc 2012;75:374. [Google Scholar]
  • [31].Bang BW, Jeong S, Lee DH, et al. The ballooning time in endoscopic papillary balloon dilation for the treatment of Bile Duct stones. Korean J Intern Med 2010;25:239–45. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [32].Bang BW, Lee TH, Song TJ, et al. Twenty-second versus sixty-second dilation duration in endoscopic papillary balloon dilation for the treatment of small common bile duct stones: a prospective randomized controlled multicenter trial. Clin Endosc 2015;48:59–65. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [33].Hakuta R, Hamada T, Nakai Y, et al. Multicenter retrospective and comparative study of 5-minute versus 15-second endoscopic papillary balloon dilation for removal of bile duct stones. Endosc Int Open 2017;5:E1027–34. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [34].Shen YH, Yang LQ, Yao YL, et al. Dilation time in endoscopic papillary balloon dilation for common bile duct stones. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 2017;27:351–5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [35].Liu Y, Su P, Lin S, et al. Endoscopic papillary balloon dilatation versus endoscopic sphincterotomy in the treatment for choledocholithiasis: a meta-analysis. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2012;27:464–71. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [36].Yasuda I, Tomita E, Enya M, et al. Can endoscopic papillary balloon dilation really preserve sphincter of Oddi function? Gut 2001;49:686–91. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [37].Kawabe T, Komatsu Y, Tada M, et al. Endoscopic papillary balloon dilation in cirrhotic patients: removal of common bile duct stones without sphincterotomy. Endoscopy 1996;28:694–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [38].Attam R, Freeman ML. Endoscopic papillary balloon dilation for stone extraction: if, when, and for how long? Gastrointest Endosc 2010;72:1163–6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [39].Leung JW, Tu R. Mechanical lithotripsy for large bile duct stones. Gastrointest Endosc 2004;59:688–90. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [40].Hintze RE, Adler A, Veltzke W. Outcome of mechanical lithotripsy of bile duct stones in an unselected series of 704 patients. Hepatogastroenterology 1996;43:473–6. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [41].Liu Y, Su P, Lin S, et al. Endoscopic sphincterotomy plus balloon dilation versus endoscopic sphincterotomy for choledocholithiasis: a meta-analysis. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2013;28:937–45. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [42].Mac Mathuna P, Siegenberg D, Gibbons D, et al. The acute and long-term effect of balloon sphincteroplasty on papillary structure in pigs. Gastrointest Endosc 1996;44:650–5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [43].Xu L, Kyaw MH, Tse YK, et al. Endoscopic sphincterotomy with large balloon dilation versus endoscopic sphincterotomy for bile duct stones: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Biomed Res Int 2015;2015:673103. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Medicine are provided here courtesy of Wolters Kluwer Health

RESOURCES