Endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation reduces the need for mechanical lithotripsy in patients with large bile duct stones: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Diagnostic and Therapeutic Endoscopy Pub Date : 2014-01-01 Epub Date: 2014-03-06 DOI:10.1155/2014/309618
Mohammad F Madhoun, Sachin Wani, Sam Hong, William M Tierney, John T Maple
{"title":"Endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation reduces the need for mechanical lithotripsy in patients with large bile duct stones: a systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Mohammad F Madhoun,&nbsp;Sachin Wani,&nbsp;Sam Hong,&nbsp;William M Tierney,&nbsp;John T Maple","doi":"10.1155/2014/309618","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Background. Removal of large stones can be challenging and frequently requires the use of mechanical lithotripsy (ML). Endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation (EPLBD) following endoscopic sphincterotomy (ES) is a technique that appears to be safe and effective. However, data comparing ES + EPLBD with ES alone have not conclusively shown superiority of either technique. Objective. To assess comparative efficacies and rate of adverse events of these methods. Method. Studies were identified by searching nine medical databases for reports published between 1994 and 2013, using a reproducible search strategy. Only studies comparing ES and ES + EPLBD with regard to large bile duct stone extraction were included. Pooling was conducted by both fixed-effects and random-effects models. Risk ratio (RR) estimates with 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated. Results. Seven studies (involving 902 patients) met the inclusion criteria; 3 of 7 studies were prospective trials. Of the 902 patients, 463 were in the ES + EPLBD group, whereas 439 underwent ES alone. There were no differences noted between the groups with regard to overall stone clearance (98% versus 95%, RR   =   1.01 [0.97, 1.05]; P  = 0.60) and stone clearance at the 1st session (87% versus 79%, RR = 1.11 [0.98, 1.25]; P  = 0.11). ES + EPLBD was associated with a reduced need for ML compared to ES alone (15% versus 32%; RR   =   0.49 [0.32, 0.74]; P  =  0.0008) and was also associated with a reduction in the overall rate of adverse events (11% versus 18%; RR = 0.58 [0.41, 0.81]; P  = 0.001). Conclusions. ES + EPLBD has similar efficacy to ES alone while significantly reducing the need for ML. Further, ES + EPLBD appears to be safe, with a lower rate of adverse events than traditional ES. ES + EPLBD should be considered as a first-line technique in the management of large bile duct stones. </p>","PeriodicalId":11288,"journal":{"name":"Diagnostic and Therapeutic Endoscopy","volume":"2014 ","pages":"309618"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1155/2014/309618","citationCount":"43","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Diagnostic and Therapeutic Endoscopy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/309618","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2014/3/6 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 43

Abstract

Background. Removal of large stones can be challenging and frequently requires the use of mechanical lithotripsy (ML). Endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation (EPLBD) following endoscopic sphincterotomy (ES) is a technique that appears to be safe and effective. However, data comparing ES + EPLBD with ES alone have not conclusively shown superiority of either technique. Objective. To assess comparative efficacies and rate of adverse events of these methods. Method. Studies were identified by searching nine medical databases for reports published between 1994 and 2013, using a reproducible search strategy. Only studies comparing ES and ES + EPLBD with regard to large bile duct stone extraction were included. Pooling was conducted by both fixed-effects and random-effects models. Risk ratio (RR) estimates with 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated. Results. Seven studies (involving 902 patients) met the inclusion criteria; 3 of 7 studies were prospective trials. Of the 902 patients, 463 were in the ES + EPLBD group, whereas 439 underwent ES alone. There were no differences noted between the groups with regard to overall stone clearance (98% versus 95%, RR   =   1.01 [0.97, 1.05]; P  = 0.60) and stone clearance at the 1st session (87% versus 79%, RR = 1.11 [0.98, 1.25]; P  = 0.11). ES + EPLBD was associated with a reduced need for ML compared to ES alone (15% versus 32%; RR   =   0.49 [0.32, 0.74]; P  =  0.0008) and was also associated with a reduction in the overall rate of adverse events (11% versus 18%; RR = 0.58 [0.41, 0.81]; P  = 0.001). Conclusions. ES + EPLBD has similar efficacy to ES alone while significantly reducing the need for ML. Further, ES + EPLBD appears to be safe, with a lower rate of adverse events than traditional ES. ES + EPLBD should be considered as a first-line technique in the management of large bile duct stones.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

内镜下乳头状大球囊扩张术减少胆管结石患者机械碎石的需要:一项系统回顾和荟萃分析。
背景。大石块的移除是具有挑战性的,经常需要使用机械碎石(ML)。内镜下乳头状大球囊扩张术(EPLBD)是一种安全有效的内镜下括约肌切开术(ES)。然而,比较ES + EPLBD与单独ES的数据并没有明确显示任何一种技术的优势。目标。评价这些方法的比较疗效和不良事件发生率。方法。通过使用可重复搜索策略,检索1994年至2013年期间发表的9个医学数据库的报告,确定了研究。仅纳入了比较ES和ES + EPLBD在大胆管结石取出方面的研究。采用固定效应模型和随机效应模型进行池化。计算95%置信区间(CI)的风险比(RR)估计值。结果。7项研究(共902例患者)符合纳入标准;7项研究中有3项是前瞻性试验。902例患者中,463例为ES + EPLBD组,439例为单独ES组。两组间结石总清除率无显著差异(98% vs 95%, RR = 1.01 [0.97, 1.05];P = 0.60)和第一次治疗时的结石清除率(87%对79%,RR = 1.11 [0.98, 1.25];P = 0.11)。与单独ES相比,ES + EPLBD与ML需求减少相关(15% vs 32%;Rr = 0.49 [0.32, 0.74];P = 0.0008),并且还与总体不良事件发生率的降低相关(11%对18%;Rr = 0.58 [0.41, 0.81];P = 0.001)。结论。ES + EPLBD与单独ES具有相似的疗效,同时显着减少ML的需要。此外,ES + EPLBD似乎是安全的,不良事件发生率低于传统ES。ES + EPLBD应作为治疗大胆管结石的一线技术。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信