Comparative efficacy of various endoscopic techniques for the treatment of common bile duct stones: a network meta-analysis

Abstract

Background and Aims: Although various endoscopic techniques have been introduced for successful removal of common bile duct (CBD) stones, the optimal method is not yet clear. We aimed to compare the efficacy of different endoscopic techniques for CBD stone removal.Methods: We searched for all relevant randomized controlled trials published until June 2017, examining the outcomes of endoscopic techniques for CBD stone removal, including endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST), endoscopic papillary balloon dilatation (EPBD), and EST with balloon dilatation (ESBD). A Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed.Results: Twenty-five studies with 3726 patients were included in the meta-analysis. ESBD had a higher successful rate of stone removal in the first endoscopic session than EPBD (odds ratio [OR] [95% credible interval {CrI}], 2.09 [1.07-4.16]). Mechanical lithotripsy was less common in ESBD than in EPBD (OR [95% CrI],.45 [.25-.83]). EPBD revealed a lower risk of bleeding than both EST and ESBD (OR [95% CrI], vs EST,.06 [. 008-.23]; vs ESBD,.12 [.01-.64]). The pooled incidences of bleeding were 3.0% (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.8%-5.2%), 1.1% (95% CI,.6%-2.0%), and 2.0% (95% CI,.9%-4.4%) in the EST, EPBD, and ESBD groups, respectively. Pancreatitis tended to be more common in EPBD than in both EST and ESBD (OR [95% CrI]: vs EST, 1.49 [.84-2.59]; vs ESBD, 1.49 [.61-3.57]).Conclusion: The efficacy of ESBD in stone removal during the first endoscopic session was superior to that of EPBD. Pancreatitis in ESBD and EST tended to be less common than in EPBD, although this difference was not statistically significant. However, ESBD and EST carried a higher risk of bleeding than EPBD.