Efficacy and safety of three endoscopic techniques for small common bile duct stones (≤ 10 mm): a multicenter, retrospective, cohort study with propensity score matching

Background Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is a major option for common bile duct (CBD) stones. Endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST), endoscopic papillary balloon dilatation (EPBD), and endoscopic sphincterotomy plus balloon dilatation (ESBD) are procedures for opening the bile duct orifice to extract CBD stones during ERCP. The optimal method for extracting small CBD stones (<= 10 mm) has not yet been proposed. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of these three techniques in extracting small CBD stones. Methods ERCP for small stones was performed between January 2009 and November 2020 at three tertiary care centers. The incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) was compared among EST, EPBD, and ESBD groups. First and overall success rates of stone extraction, utilization rate of mechanical lithotripsy, and other ERCP complications such as bleeding, perforation, infection, and hyperamylasemia were compared. Results A total of 2181 patients were enrolled between January 2009 and November 2020. The proportion of young patients (<= 45 years) in EPBD group was more than those in EST and ESBD group. Stone size in ESBD group was much larger than EST and EPBD group. After propensity score matching, the success rates of first and overall stone extraction in the three groups were high, and the rates of mechanical lithotripsy were low, with no significant difference. The PEP incidences showed no differences among the three groups. The incidence of bleeding complication in EST group was higher than that in EPBD group. No significant differences were observed in other complications between EPBD group and ESBD group. ESBD group had higher incidence of overall, infection, and hyperamylasemia complications than EST group. Conclusion EPBD is equivalent to ESBD in stone removal efficiency and complication rate, but brings a lower bleeding risk than EST. Therefore, we recommend EPBD as the first choice for small CBD stones.

Automated summary

This study compares the efficacy and safety of EST, EPBD, and ESBD in extracting small CBD stones. The results show that EPBD is equivalent to ESBD in stone removal efficiency and complication rate, but has a lower risk of bleeding. Therefore, EPBD is recommended as the first choice for small CBD stones.