Endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation vs endoscopic sphincterotomy for retrieval of common bile duct stones: A meta-analysis

Table 3 Pooled effects of efficacy and safety in randomized controlled trials n (%)

Items	Incidence of		Number of subjects	Hetero-geneity I2 (P)	Analysis model	Test for overall effect		RR/Peto OR (95%CI)
	EPLBD	EST				Z	P value
	(n = 303)	(n = 318)
Complete stone removal rate	93.7 (284)	92.5 (294)	621	0% (0.82)	Fixed	0.61	0.54	RR = 1.01
					(M-H)			(0.97-1.06)
Complete ductal clearance in one session	82.2 (249)	77.7 (247)	621	44% (0.13)	Fixed	1.36	0.17	RR = 1.06
					(M-H)			(0.98-1.14)
Requirement for EML	15.5 (47)	25.2 (80)	621	10% (0.35)	Fixed	2.98	0.003a	RR = 0.62
					(M-H)			(0.45-0.85)
Overall Adverse events	7.9 (24)	10.7 (34)	621	0% (0.97)	Fixed	1.16	0.25	RR = 0.75
					(M-H)			(0.46-1.22)
Post-ERCP pancreatitis	4.0 (12)	5.0 (16)	621	0% (0.98)	Peto	0.62	0.54	Peto OR = 0.79
								(0.37-1.68)
Hemorrhage	1.7 (5)	2.8 (9)	621	28% (0.25)	Peto	1.00	0.32	Peto OR = 0.57
								(0.19-1.71)
Perforation	0.3 (1)	0.9 (3)	621	34% (0.22)	Peto	0.93	0.35	Peto OR = 0.39
								(0.06-2.81)
Acute cholangitis	1.3 (4)	1.3 (4)	621	0% (0.71)	Peto	0.11	0.92	Peto OR = 1.08
								(0.27-4.37)

^aSignificant difference. EML: Endoscopic mechanical lithotripsy; ERCP: Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography; Fix: Fixed effects model; M-H: Mantel-Haenszel.