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

Table 3 Post-endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography pancreatitis rates after endoscopic papillary large-balloon dilatation without preceding endoscopic sphincterotomy

Ref.	Study design	Year	Total patients	Significance compared to the control			Percentage of PEP		Mean balloon size (mm)	Maximum pressure	Mean ballooning time (s)	Dilatation speed
				Therapuetic success	ML use	PEP rate	EPLBD alone	EST alone
Minakari et al[42]	RCT	2013	160	-	NM	-	11.2	8.7	15.0	Size of stones	60	NM
Kim et al[43]	R	2013	223	-	-	-	10.9	6.8	15.6	Waist disappear	38	With caution
Hwang et al[44]	R	2013	131	-	-	-	6.5	4.3	15.9	Size of stones	60	Gradually
Li et al[45]	R	2015	109	-	-	-	6.3	4.9	14.2	Size of stones	60	Gradually
Oh et al[46]	RCT	2012	83	-	-	-	5.0	7.0	11.8	Waist disappear	31	Gradually
Omuta et al[47]	Pros	2015	41	N/A	N/A	N/A	4.9	N/A	10-20	Size of stones	0	Gradually
Kogure et al[48]	Pros	2014	42	-	-	-	4.0	7.01	14.0	Waist disappear	15-60	Gradually
Jeong et al[49]	R	2009	38	N/A	N/A	N/A	2.6	N/A	15.5	Waist disappear	53	Gradually
Chan et al[50]	R	2011	247	N/A	N/A	N/A	0.8	N/A	13.2	Size of stones	282	NM
Lin et al[51]	RCT	2004	104	-	-	-	0	0	8-12	Size of stones	300	NM

¹Endoscopic papillary large-balloon dilatation (EPLBD) with preceding endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST). R: Retrospective; Pros: Prospective; RCT: Randomized controlled trial; ML: Mechanical lithotripsy; N/A: Not applicable; NM: Not mentioned.