We have located links that may give you full text access.
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Randomized Controlled Trial
Comparison of endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation with or without endoscopic sphincterotomy for the treatment of large bile duct stones.
Endoscopy 2019 Februrary
BACKGROUND: Endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation (EPLBD) without prior endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) produces excellent outcomes for the treatment of large common bile duct (CBD) stones. However, it remains unclear how the outcomes of EPLBD alone compare with those of EPLBD with EST. In this study, we assessed the safety and therapeutic outcomes of EPLBD with vs. without EST for the removal of large bile duct stones.
METHODS: This prospective, multicenter study was conducted on 200 patients with bile duct stones of ≥ 10 mm in diameter. Patients were randomly assigned to an EPLBD alone group (n = 100) or an EPLBD with EST group (n = 100). These two groups were compared with respect to overall procedure-related adverse events, overall stone removal success rate, number of endoscopic sessions required for complete stone removal, need for mechanical lithotripsy, and total procedure time.
RESULTS: The incidence of adverse events was not significantly different between the groups (EPLBD alone vs. EPLBD with EST: overall adverse events 6 % vs. 4 %, P = 0.75; pancreatitis 1 % vs. 3 %, P = 0.62). Overall success ( P = 0.35), initial success ( P = 0.28), and the need for mechanical lithotripsy ( P = 0.39) were also similar between groups. Median total procedure time tended to be greater in the EPLBD alone group (20.5 minutes) than in the EPLBD with EST group (18 minutes; P = 0.08).
CONCLUSION: The therapeutic outcomes and adverse events of EPLBD alone for the removal of large bile duct stones were comparable to those of EPLBD with EST.
METHODS: This prospective, multicenter study was conducted on 200 patients with bile duct stones of ≥ 10 mm in diameter. Patients were randomly assigned to an EPLBD alone group (n = 100) or an EPLBD with EST group (n = 100). These two groups were compared with respect to overall procedure-related adverse events, overall stone removal success rate, number of endoscopic sessions required for complete stone removal, need for mechanical lithotripsy, and total procedure time.
RESULTS: The incidence of adverse events was not significantly different between the groups (EPLBD alone vs. EPLBD with EST: overall adverse events 6 % vs. 4 %, P = 0.75; pancreatitis 1 % vs. 3 %, P = 0.62). Overall success ( P = 0.35), initial success ( P = 0.28), and the need for mechanical lithotripsy ( P = 0.39) were also similar between groups. Median total procedure time tended to be greater in the EPLBD alone group (20.5 minutes) than in the EPLBD with EST group (18 minutes; P = 0.08).
CONCLUSION: The therapeutic outcomes and adverse events of EPLBD alone for the removal of large bile duct stones were comparable to those of EPLBD with EST.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Challenges in Septic Shock: From New Hemodynamics to Blood Purification Therapies.Journal of Personalized Medicine 2024 Februrary 4
Molecular Targets of Novel Therapeutics for Diabetic Kidney Disease: A New Era of Nephroprotection.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 April 4
The 'Ten Commandments' for the 2023 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for the management of endocarditis.European Heart Journal 2024 April 18
A Guide to the Use of Vasopressors and Inotropes for Patients in Shock.Journal of Intensive Care Medicine 2024 April 14
Diagnosis and Management of Cardiac Sarcoidosis: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.Circulation 2024 April 19
Essential thrombocythaemia: A contemporary approach with new drugs on the horizon.British Journal of Haematology 2024 April 9
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app