Facciorusso Antonio, Gkolfakis Paraskevas, Ramai Daryl, Tziatzios Georgios, Lester Janice, Crinò Stefano Francesco, Frazzoni Leonardo, Papanikolaou Ioannis S, Arvanitakis Marianna, Blero Daniel, Lemmers Arnaud, Eisendrath Pierre, Fuccio Lorenzo, Triantafyllou Konstantinos, Gabbrielli Armando, Devière Jacques
Gastroenterology Unit, Department of Surgical and Medical Sciences, University of Foggia, Foggia, Italy; Department of Medicine, Gastroenterology and Digestive Endoscopy Unit, The Pancreas Institute, University Hospital of Verona, Verona, Italy.
Department of Gastroenterology, Hepatopancreatology, and Digestive Oncology, Cliniques Universitaires de Bruxelles Erasme Hospital, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium.
Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2023 Jan;21(1):33-44.e9. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2021.10.013. Epub 2021 Oct 16.
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.
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.
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.
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.
已提出多种内镜治疗方法用于治疗较大的胆管结石。我们通过网状Meta分析评估了这些治疗方法的相对疗效。
确定了19项随机对照试验(2752例患者),这些试验比较了不同治疗方法对较大胆管结石(>10mm)的处理效果(内镜括约肌切开术、气囊括约肌成形术、括约肌切开术联合内镜乳头大球囊扩张术[S+EPLBD]、机械碎石术、单人操作胆管镜检查[SOC])。研究结局为结石清除成功率和不良事件发生率。我们对所有治疗方法进行了成对和网状Meta分析,并使用推荐分级、评估、制定与评价标准来评估证据质量。
除机械碎石术外,所有治疗方法在结石清除率方面均显著优于括约肌切开术(风险比[RR],1.03 - 1.29)。SOC优于其他辅助干预措施(与气囊括约肌成形术相比[RR,1.24;95%可信区间,1.07 - 1.45],与S+EPLBD相比[RR,1.23;范围,1.06 - 1.42],与机械碎石术相比[RR,1.34;范围,1.14 - 1.58])。胆管镜检查在提高结石清除成功率方面排名最高(累积排序曲线下面积[SUCRA]评分,0.99),其次是S+EPLBD(SUCRA评分,0.68)。仅考虑报告结石大于15mm的研究时,SOC和S+EPLBD优于其他方式(SUCRA评分分别为0.97和0.71)。与内镜括约肌切开术或其他治疗方法相比,所评估的干预措施在不良事件发生率方面均无显著差异。内镜逆行胰胆管造影术后胰腺炎和出血是最常见的不良事件。
在较大胆管结石患者中,胆管镜检查是最有效的方法,尤其是对于结石较大(>15mm)的患者,而S+EPLBD可能是一种成本较低且更易获得的替代方法。