Minimal endoscopic sphincterotomy with papillary balloon dilation versus endoscopic sphincterotomy for the treatment of common bile duct stones (MARBLE Trial): study protocol for a multicenter randomized controlled trial.

IF 2 4区 医学 Q3 MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL
Trials Pub Date : 2025-08-26 DOI:10.1186/s13063-025-09076-2
Tadahisa Inoue, Akinori Maruta, Junichi Kaneko, Toji Murabayashi, Hirofumi Okuda, Masato Yano, Rena Kitano, Shinya Uemura, Shota Iwata, Shun Futagami, Takuya Koizumi, Tomoya Kitada, Yosuke Ohashi, Yosuke Kobayashi
{"title":"Minimal endoscopic sphincterotomy with papillary balloon dilation versus endoscopic sphincterotomy for the treatment of common bile duct stones (MARBLE Trial): study protocol for a multicenter randomized controlled trial.","authors":"Tadahisa Inoue, Akinori Maruta, Junichi Kaneko, Toji Murabayashi, Hirofumi Okuda, Masato Yano, Rena Kitano, Shinya Uemura, Shota Iwata, Shun Futagami, Takuya Koizumi, Tomoya Kitada, Yosuke Ohashi, Yosuke Kobayashi","doi":"10.1186/s13063-025-09076-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The first-line treatment for common bile duct stones (CBDS) is endoscopic transpapillary stone removal, typically performed using either endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) or endoscopic papillary balloon dilation (EPBD). However, EST is associated with risks of bleeding and perforation, while EPBD carries a significant risk of post-procedural pancreatitis. Recently, a combined approach involving minimal EST followed by EPBD (ESBD) has been reported to mitigate these drawbacks, offering potentially safer and more effective outcomes. Nevertheless, no prospective study has adequately evaluated the utility of ESBD, as prior studies were mainly observational or limited by small sample sizes. Therefore, we designed a randomized controlled trial to investigate whether ESBD is superior to EST for the treatment of small CBDS.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study is a multicenter, randomized, open-label, parallel-group trial; outcome assessors will not be blinded, but objective predefined criteria will be used to minimize bias. Eligible participants will include patients aged 18 years or older diagnosed with CBDS who require endoscopic stone removal, with eligibility confirmed via imaging modalities. After confirming eligibility, patients will be randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to either the ESBD group or the EST group. In the ESBD group, a minimal sphincterotomy will first be performed, followed by balloon dilation for stone extraction. In the EST group, a medium incision extending beyond the hooding fold will be performed prior to stone extraction. The primary endpoint is the incidence of procedure-related adverse events, including pancreatitis, bleeding, and perforation. Secondary endpoints include technical success rate, clinical success rate, procedure time, need for lithotripsy, and stone recurrence rate.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>This study is the first multicenter, randomized controlled trial to prospectively evaluate the efficacy and safety of ESBD for the treatment of small CBDS. The findings are expected to determine whether ESBD can serve as a new standard therapeutic option compared with conventional EST.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>Japan Registry of Clinical Trials: jRCT1040250008. Registered on 21 April 2025. ( https://jrct.mhlw.go.jp/en-latest-detail/jRCT1040250008 ).</p>","PeriodicalId":23333,"journal":{"name":"Trials","volume":"26 1","pages":"307"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12379485/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Trials","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-025-09076-2","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The first-line treatment for common bile duct stones (CBDS) is endoscopic transpapillary stone removal, typically performed using either endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) or endoscopic papillary balloon dilation (EPBD). However, EST is associated with risks of bleeding and perforation, while EPBD carries a significant risk of post-procedural pancreatitis. Recently, a combined approach involving minimal EST followed by EPBD (ESBD) has been reported to mitigate these drawbacks, offering potentially safer and more effective outcomes. Nevertheless, no prospective study has adequately evaluated the utility of ESBD, as prior studies were mainly observational or limited by small sample sizes. Therefore, we designed a randomized controlled trial to investigate whether ESBD is superior to EST for the treatment of small CBDS.

Methods: This study is a multicenter, randomized, open-label, parallel-group trial; outcome assessors will not be blinded, but objective predefined criteria will be used to minimize bias. Eligible participants will include patients aged 18 years or older diagnosed with CBDS who require endoscopic stone removal, with eligibility confirmed via imaging modalities. After confirming eligibility, patients will be randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to either the ESBD group or the EST group. In the ESBD group, a minimal sphincterotomy will first be performed, followed by balloon dilation for stone extraction. In the EST group, a medium incision extending beyond the hooding fold will be performed prior to stone extraction. The primary endpoint is the incidence of procedure-related adverse events, including pancreatitis, bleeding, and perforation. Secondary endpoints include technical success rate, clinical success rate, procedure time, need for lithotripsy, and stone recurrence rate.

Discussion: This study is the first multicenter, randomized controlled trial to prospectively evaluate the efficacy and safety of ESBD for the treatment of small CBDS. The findings are expected to determine whether ESBD can serve as a new standard therapeutic option compared with conventional EST.

Trial registration: Japan Registry of Clinical Trials: jRCT1040250008. Registered on 21 April 2025. ( https://jrct.mhlw.go.jp/en-latest-detail/jRCT1040250008 ).

Abstract Image

微创内镜下括约肌切开术联合乳头状球囊扩张与内镜下括约肌切开术治疗胆总管结石(MARBLE试验):多中心随机对照试验的研究方案。
背景:胆总管结石(CBDS)的一线治疗是内镜下经乳头取石术,通常采用内镜下括约肌切开术(EST)或内镜下乳头球囊扩张术(EPBD)。然而,EST与出血和穿孔风险相关,而EPBD具有显著的术后胰腺炎风险。最近有报道称,一种结合最小EST和EPBD (ESBD)的方法减轻了这些缺点,提供了更安全、更有效的结果。然而,由于先前的研究主要是观察性的或受小样本量的限制,没有前瞻性研究充分评估了ESBD的效用。因此,我们设计了一项随机对照试验来研究ESBD治疗小CBDS是否优于EST。方法:本研究是一项多中心、随机、开放标签、平行组试验;结果评估者不会采用盲法,但将使用客观的预定义标准来最小化偏倚。符合条件的参与者将包括年龄在18岁或以上的诊断为CBDS的患者,他们需要内镜下取石,并通过成像方式确认其资格。在确认资格后,患者将按1:1的比例随机分配到ESBD组或EST组。在ESBD组,首先进行最小括约肌切开术,然后进行球囊扩张以取出结石。在EST组中,在取出结石之前,将在兜帽褶皱之外进行中等切口。主要终点是手术相关不良事件的发生率,包括胰腺炎、出血和穿孔。次要终点包括技术成功率、临床成功率、手术时间、碎石需求和结石复发率。讨论:本研究是首个前瞻性评价ESBD治疗小CBDS疗效和安全性的多中心随机对照试验。研究结果有望确定与传统est相比,ESBD是否可以作为一种新的标准治疗选择。试验注册:日本临床试验注册:jRCT1040250008。于2025年4月21日注册。(https://jrct.mhlw.go.jp/en-latest-detail/jRCT1040250008)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Trials
Trials 医学-医学:研究与实验
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
4.00%
发文量
966
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: Trials is an open access, peer-reviewed, online journal that will encompass all aspects of the performance and findings of randomized controlled trials. Trials will experiment with, and then refine, innovative approaches to improving communication about trials. We are keen to move beyond publishing traditional trial results articles (although these will be included). We believe this represents an exciting opportunity to advance the science and reporting of trials. Prior to 2006, Trials was published as Current Controlled Trials in Cardiovascular Medicine (CCTCVM). All published CCTCVM articles are available via the Trials website and citations to CCTCVM article URLs will continue to be supported.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信