Is endoscopic papillary balloon dilatation really a risk factor for post-ERCP pancreatitis?

Table 2 Endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography pancreatitis rates in endoscopic papillary balloon dilatation and endoscopic sphincterotomy in ramdomized control trials

Ref.		Study design	Year	Total patients	Significant difference from the control			Percentage of PEP		Balloon size (mm)	Maximum pressure (atm)	Ballooning time (s)	Dilatation speed	Note
					Therapuetic success	ML use	PEP rate	EPBD	EST
Significant	Fujita et al[33]	RCT	2003	282	-	-	EPBD > EST	10.9	2.8	8	Waist disappear	15	3 min
	Disario et al[2]	RCT	2004	237	-	-	EPBD > EST	10.3	0.8	8	Maximum	60	NM	2 deaths in EPBD
	Watanabe et al[34]	RCT	2007	180	EST > EPBD	EPBD > EST	EPBD > EST	16.7	6.7	8	7	120	NM
Non-significant	Minami et al[35]	RCT	1995	40	-	-	-	10.0	10.0	8	NM	180	NM	Manometry
	Bergman et al[36]	RCT	1997	202	-	EPBD > EST	-	6.9	6.9	8	12	45-60	1-2 min	1 death in EPBD
	Ochi et al[37]	RCT	1999	110	EST > EPBD	-	-	0	3.7	8	8	60 × 3 times	NM
	Arnold et al[38]	RCT	2001	60	EST > EPBD	NM	-	20.0	10.0	8	10	60 × 2 times	NM
	Yasuda et al[22]	RCT	2001	70	-	EPBD > EST	-	5.7	5.7	8	6	60 × 2 times	NM	Manometry
	Bergman et al[13]	RCT	2001	34	-	-	-	6.2	0	8	10	45-60	1-2 min	Billroth II
	Natsui et al[39]	RCT	2002	140	-	-	-	5.7	4.3	8	8	120	NM
	Vlavianos et al[40]	RCT	2003	202	-	-	-	4.8	1.0	10	12	30	NM
	Tanaka et al[41]	RCT	2004	32	-	-	-	18.8	18.8	8	8	120	NM	Long-term outcome
	Seo et al[25]	RCT	2014	132	-	-	-	8.1	7.1	6-10	Stone size	90-120	Gradually	Age < 40 yr

RCT: Randomized control trial; ML: Mechanical lithotripsy; NM: Not mentioned.