• Citer

Endoscopic Treatment of Large Bile Duct Stones: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

par Facciorusso, Antonio;Gkolfakis, Paraskevas;Ramai, Daryl;Tziatzios, Georgios;Lester, Janice;Crinò, Stefano Francesco;Frazzoni, Leonardo;Papanikolaou, Ioannis I.S.;Arvanitakis, Marianna ;Blero, Daniel ;Lemmers, Arnaud ;Eisendrath, Pierre ;Fuccio, Lorenzo;Triantafyllou, Konstantinos;Gabbrielli, Armando;Devière, Jacques
Référence Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology
Publication Publié, 2021-09-01

Article révisé par les pairs

• Accès en ligne
• Détails
• Contenu
• Statistiques

Résumé :

Background & Aims: Several endoscopic methods have been proposed for the treatment of large biliary stones. We assessed the comparative efficacy of these treatments through a network meta-analysis. Methods: Nineteen randomized controlled trials (2752 patients) comparing different treatments for management of large bile stones (>10 mm) (endoscopic sphincterotomy, balloon sphincteroplasty, sphincterotomy followed by endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation [S+EPLBD], mechanical lithotripsy, single-operator cholangioscopy [SOC]) with each other were identified. Study outcomes were the success rate of stone removal and the incidence of adverse events. We performed pairwise and network meta-analysis for all treatments, and used Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation criteria to appraise the quality of evidence. Results: All treatments except mechanical lithotripsy significantly outperformed sphincterotomy in terms of stone removal rate (risk ratio [RR], 1.03–1.29). SOC was superior to other adjunctive interventions (vs balloon sphincteroplasty [RR, 1.24; 95% CIs, 1.07–1.45], vs S+EPLBD [RR, 1.23; range, 1.06–1.42] and vs mechanical lithotripsy [RR, 1.34; range, 1.14–1.58]). Cholangioscopy ranked the highest in increasing the success rate of stone removal (surface under the cumulative ranking [SUCRA] score, 0.99) followed by S+EPLBD (SUCRA score, 0.68). SOC and S+EPLBD outperformed the other modalities when only studies reporting on stones greater than 15 mm were taken into consideration (SUCRA scores, 0.97 and 0.71, respectively). None of the assessed interventions was significantly different in terms of adverse event rate compared with endoscopic sphincterotomy or with other treatments. Post-ERCP pancreatitis and bleeding were the most frequent adverse events. Conclusions: Among patients with large bile stones, cholangioscopy represents the most effective method, in particular in patients with larger (>15 mm) stones, whereas S+EPLBD could represent a less expensive and more widely available alternative.