Efficacy and safety of endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation alone versus endoscopic sphincterotomy combined with large balloon dilation in treatment of large common bile duct stones: A Meta-analysis
DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1001-5256.2020.11.019
- VernacularTitle:内镜下乳头大球囊扩张术与括约肌切开联合大球囊扩张术治疗胆总管大结石有效性和安全性的Meta分析
- Author:
Xingzhi LI
1
;
Changwei WU
;
Likun REN
;
Hao LIU
;
Min HAN
Author Information
1. Guizhou Medical University, Guiyang 550004, China
- Publication Type:Research Article
- Keywords:
choledocholithiasis;
sphincterotomy, endoscopic;
Meta-analysis as topic
- From:
Journal of Clinical Hepatology
2020;36(11):2494-2499
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
ObjectiveTo systematically review the efficacy and safety of endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation (EPLBD) versus endoscopic sphincterotomy combined with large balloon dilation (ESBD) in the treatment of large common bile duct stones (≥10 mm). MethodsPubmed, Embase, Cochrane Library, CNKI, Wanfang Data, and VIP were searched for related articles published up to March 2020. Two reviewers independently performed article screening, data extraction, and quality assessment, and RevMan 5.3 software was used for statistical analysis. ResultsA total of 11 studies (6 randomized controlled trials and 5 non-randomized controlled trials) were included, with 1282 patients in total. The meta-analysis showed that in the 6 randomized controlled trials, there were no significant differences between the EPLBD group and the ESBD group in initial stone clearance rate (odds ratio ［OR］=0.71, 95% confidence interval ［CI］: 0.45-1.12, P=0.14), overall stone clearance rate (OR=1.39, 95%CI: 0.65-2.96, P=0.39), rate of use of mechanical lithotripsy (OR=1.19, 95%CI: 0.75-1.89, P=0.46), and incidence rate of early complications (OR=1.10, 95%CI: 0.60-2.03, P=075); in the 5 non-randomized controlled trials, there were no significant differences between the EPLBD group and the ESBD group in initial stone clearance rate (OR=0.64, 95%CI: 0.35-1.15, P=0.13), overall stone clearance rate (OR=0.46, 95%CI: 0.19-112, P=009), and incidence rate of early complications (OR=1.20, 95%CI: 0.65-2.21, P=0.56), but the EPLBD group had a significantly higher rate of use of mechanical lithotripsy than the ESBD group (OR=1.96, 95%CI: 1.26-3.05, P=0.003). ConclusionEPLBD and ESBD have similar efficacy and safety in the treatment of large common bile duct stones, while EPLBD may increase the risk of the use of mechanical lithotripsy. More high-quality randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm this conclusion.
