Table of Contents Author Guidelines Submit a Manuscript
Gastroenterology Research and Practice
Volume 2015 (2015), Article ID 839346, 7 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2015/839346
Research Article

Effects Comparison between Endoscopic Papillary Large Balloon Dilatation and Endoscopic Sphincterotomy for Common Bile Duct Stone Removal

Department of Gastroenterology, Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Gastroenterology, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou 510515, China

Received 9 December 2014; Accepted 3 June 2015

Academic Editor: Michel Kahaleh

Copyright © 2015 Yandong Guo et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) is a treatment of choice for stone extraction and is now most frequently used. The study was to compare the efficacy of endoscopic papillary large balloon dilatation (EPLBD) and endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) for common bile duct stone removal. Trials comparing the effects between EPLBD and EST treatment were searched according to the study protocol. Overall stone removal rate, complete removal rate in 1st session, treatment duration, mechanical lithotripsy using rate, and overall complication rate were compared using risk ratio (RR) and mean difference (MD) and their 95% confidence interval (CI) via RevMan 5.2 software. For overall stone removal rate, two therapies showed similar effect, but EPLBD showed better overall stone removal rate for stone >10 mm in diameter. For complete stone removal rate in 1st session, no difference was found, even for those with stone >10 mm in diameter; EPLBD showed longer treatment duration, higher mechanical lithotripsy using rate obvious overall complications rate, and more serious bleeding, whereas there were no significant differences for perforation, hyperamylasemia, pancreatitis, and cholecystitis/cholangitis. EPLBD showed better efficacy in certain conditions compared to EST, however with shortcomings, such as more duration, higher mechanical lithotripsy using rate, more serious overall complications rate, and bleeding.