Related Experiment Video
Updated: Apr 29, 2026
Laparoscopic Common Bile Duct Exploration Followed by Primary Suture Using a Modified Bile Duct Incision
Published on: May 2, 2025
Endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation vs endoscopic sphincterotomy for retrieval of common bile duct stones: a
Piao-Piao Jin1, Jian-Feng Cheng1, Dan Liu1
1Piao-Piao Jin, Lei-Min Sun, Department of Gastroenterology, Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, School of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310016, Zhejiang Province, China.
Aim:
To compare the efficacy and safety of endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation (EPLBD) with endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) in retrieval of common bile duct stones (≥ 10 mm).
Methods:
PubMed, Web of Knowledge, EBSCO, the Cochrane Library, and EMBASE were searched for eligible studies. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared EPLBD with EST were identified. Data extraction and quality assessment were performed by two independent reviewers using the same criteria. Any disagreement was discussed with a third reviewer until a final consensus was reached. Pooled outcomes of complete bile duct stone clearance, stone clearance in one session, requirement for mechanical lithotripsy, and overall complication rate were determined using relative risk and 95%CI. The separate post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography complications were pooled and determined with the Peto odds ratio and 95%CI because of the small number of events. Heterogeneity was evaluated with the chi-squared test with P ≤ 0.1 and I(2) with a cutoff of ≥ 50%. A fixed effects model was used primarily. A random effects model was applied when significant heterogeneity was detected. Sensitivity analysis was applied to explore the potential bias.
Results:
Five randomized controlled trials with 621 participants were included. EPLBD compared with EST had similar outcomes with regard to complete stone removal rate (93.7% vs 92.5%, P = 0.54) and complete duct clearance in one session (82.2% vs 77.7%, P = 0.17). Mechanical lithotripsy was performed less in EPLBD in the retrieval of whole stones (15.5% vs 25.2%, P = 0.003), as well as in the stratified subgroup of stones larger than 15 mm (24.2% vs 40%, P = 0.001). There was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of overall adverse events (7.9% vs 10.7%, P = 0.25), post-ERCP pancreatitis (4.0% vs 5.0%, P = 0.54), hemorrhage (1.7% vs 2.8%, P = 0.32), perforation (0.3% vs 0.9%, P = 0.35) or acute cholangitis (1.3% vs 1.3%, P = 0.92).
Conclusion:
EPLBD could be advocated as an alternative to EST in the retrieval of large common bile duct stones.
