Skip to main content
Clinical Trials/NCT05638789
NCT05638789CompletedNot Applicable

Endoscopic Sphincterotomy With Balloon Dilatation Versus Sphincterotomy Alone For Common Bile Duct Stones Removal

Hospital Universiti Sains Malaysia1 site in 1 country66 target enrollmentStarted: June 28, 2021Last updated:
Conditions
Interventions

Trial Snapshot

Phase
Not Applicable
Status
Completed
Enrollment
66
Locations
1
Primary Endpoint
Rate of complete common bile stone clearance of EST alone versus EST plus EPLBD

Study Overview

Brief Summary

Gallstone is a worldwide clinical problem which affecting most of the populations with incidence of 15 to 20% in west and 10% in Asians. About 5 to 15% of patient with gallstone will go on to develop bile duct calculi. There are several endoscopic strategies developed for treatment of common bile duct stone such as endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST), endoscopic papillary large balloon dilatation (EPLBD) and combination of EST plus EPLBD. Our aim of this study is to compare efficacy, and safety of EST alone group versus EST plus EPLBD group in removing CBD stone.

Detailed Description

Endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) is most widely used during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) to remove common bile duct (CBD) stone and considered as standard therapy for treatment of choledocholithiasis. However, in view of EST requires an adequate incision on major duodenal papilla to achieve biliary cannulation, it can potentially cause damage to biliary sphincter during the procedure and potentially increased risk of some complications such as bleeding and biliary reflux. This procedure carries risk of complications such as haemorrhage, perforation, and long-term effect like sphincter dysfunction.

Staritz introduced a method called endoscopic papillary large balloon dilatation (EPLBD) in 1983 as an alternative to EST in clearing CBD stone. EPLBD can reduced the risk of bleeding and perforation post procedure, but it carries higher risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis.

About 10 to 15% of CBD stone are unable to be extracted by both EST or EPLBD alone, especially in those patients with big and difficult stone (size bigger than 10 to 15mm, numerous, barrel-shaped, and impacted stones). Besides that, other factors that can contribute to failure of stone extraction are periampullary diverticulum or post operative variation, tortuosity and tightening of distal common bile duct.

In 2003, Ersoz introduced combination of EST plus EPLBD as an alternative method. It can reduce the risk of complications through avoiding a complete sphincterotomy, shortening procedural time, and reducing the need of usage of mechanical lithotripsy.

In a study on 2007, it showed that EST plus EPLBD had comparable efficacy and safety when compared to conventional EST alone and both groups have similar complication rate. Besides that, in a recent study in 2020, it also showed that EST plus EPLBD had a comparable efficacy when compared with EST alone in clearing CBD stone and EST plus EPLBD required shorter procedural time when compared with EST alone. There is no significant increased risk in pancreatitis for EST plus EPLBD. While, in a randomized controlled study in 2017, it showed that EST plus EPLBD is more effective than EST alone in clearing large CBD stone and is equally safe compared to EST alone. In another randomized controlled trial in 2013, the study showed that the success rate for complete CBD stone removal in first session is higher in EST plus EPLBD group when compared to EST alone and it is statistically significant. But the overall stone clearance rate and complication rate was similar in both groups. Apart from that, there are many other studies have suggested EST plus EPBD as a safe and promising alternative to conventional EST or EPLBD. In a published meta-analysis, accumulated data showed that EST plus EPLBD is a safe and effective procedure in removing large or difficult CBD stone without any additional risk of complications.

Study Design

Study Type
Interventional
Allocation
Randomized
Intervention Model
Parallel
Primary Purpose
Treatment
Masking
Single (Participant)

Masking Description

66 patients with CBD stone will be divided into two groups which is Group A(EST+EPLBD) (33 cases) and Group B (EST alone) (33 cases). Randomization will be done using computer software for sequence generation and was stratified with 1:1 allocation using random block sizes of 6 and 8 to Group A or Group B. The allocation concealment mechanism was developed by preparing 88 sealed and opaque envelopes. Each envelop contain one allocation sequence which is generated by computer software. Data collection officer will randomly open one of the envelop each time one patient recruited and will need to follow the allocation sequences inside the envelop in order to determine whether the patient to be Group A or Group B patient. This is single blinded study whereby the participant is blinded but the endoscopist is not blinded.

Eligibility Criteria

Ages
18 Years to — (Adult, Older Adult)
Sex
All
Accepts Healthy Volunteers
No

Inclusion Criteria

  • •Patient's age 18 and above
  • •Patient with CBD stone documented on imaging studies

Exclusion Criteria

  • •CBD stone size more than 15mm
  • •CBD stone number more than 3
  • •Concurrent hepatobiliary tumour
  • •Intrahepatic stone
  • •Bleeding tendencies: coagulopathy, thrombocytopenia, patient on anticoagulant medication
  • •Patient in sepsis/ Cholangitis patient
  • •Patient with acute pancreatitis
  • •Prior history of Bilroth II or Roux-en-y surgery

Arms & Interventions

EST alone

Active Comparator

Intervention: endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) versus EST plus endoscopic papillary large balloon dilatation (EPLBD) (Procedure)

EST + EPLBD

Active Comparator

Intervention: endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) versus EST plus endoscopic papillary large balloon dilatation (EPLBD) (Procedure)

Outcomes

Primary Outcomes

Rate of complete common bile stone clearance of EST alone versus EST plus EPLBD

Time Frame: 12 months

to compare the rate of overall complete stone clearance in EST alone arm vs EST plus EPLBD arm

Complication rate of EST alone versus EST plus EPLBD in removing CBD stone

Time Frame: 12 months

to compare complication rate which are post ERCP bleeding, post-ERCP pancreatitis, perforation and cholangitis rate of EST alone arm versus EST plus EPLBD arm in removing CBD stone

Secondary Outcomes

No secondary outcomes reported

Investigators

Sponsor Class
Other
Responsible Party
Principal Investigator
Principal Investigator

OOI JIE SOANG

PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR

Hospital Universiti Sains Malaysia

Study Sites (1)

Loading locations...

Similar Trials