Published online Feb 28, 2015. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v21.i8.2443
Peer-review started: August 4, 2014
First decision: August 27, 2014
Revised: September 23, 2014
Accepted: December 1, 2014
Article in press: December 1, 2014
Published online: February 28, 2015
AIM: To evaluate the necessity of endoscopic nasobiliary drainage (ENBD) catheter placement after clearance of common bile duct (CBD) stones.
METHODS: Patients enrolled in this study were randomly divided into two groups, according to whether or not they received ENBD after the removal of CBD stones. Group 1 (ENBD group) was then subdivided into three groups: G1a patients received an endoscopic papillary balloon dilatation (EPBD), G1b patients received an endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST), and G1c patients received neither. Group 2 (non-ENBD group) patients were also subdivided into three groups (G2a, G2b, and G2c), similar to Group 1. The maximum CBD diameter, the time for C-reactive protein (CRP) to normalize, levels of serum amylase, total serum bilirubin (TB) and alanine aminotransferase (ALT), and postoperative hospitalization duration (PHD) were measured.
RESULTS: A total of 218 patients (139 males, 79 females), with an average age of 60.1 ± 10.8 years, were enrolled in this study. One hundred and thirteen patients who received ENBD were included in Group 1, and 105 patients who did not receive ENBD were included in Group 2. The baseline clinical characteristics were similar in both groups. There were no significant differences in post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP)-related complications when Groups 1 and 2 were compared. Seventy-seven patients underwent EPBD, and 41 received an ENBD tube (G1a) and 36 did not (G2a). Seventy-three patients underwent EST, and 34 patients received an ENBD tube (G1b) and 39 did not (G2b). The remaining 68 patients underwent neither EPBD nor EST; of these patients, 38 received an ENBD tube (G1c) and 30 did not (G2c). For each of the three pairs of subgroups (G1a vs G2a, G1b vs G2b, G1c vs G2c), there were no significant differences detected in the PHD or the time to normalization of CRP, TB and ALT. In the EPBD group, the incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis, hyperamylasemia and overall patient complications was significantly higher for G2a (post-ERCP pancreatitis: 6/36 vs 0/41, P = 0.0217; hyperamylasemia: 11/36 vs 4/41, P = 0.0215; overall patient complications: 18/36 vs 7/41, P = 0.0029).
CONCLUSION: After successful CBD stone clearance, ENBD is only beneficial when an EPBD procedure has been performed.
Core tip: Several studies have compared the efficacy of temporary insertion of an endoscopic nasobiliary drainage (ENBD) tube to a biliary stent until clearance of stones from the common bile duct (CBD) is confirmed. However, few studies have evaluated the benefits in clinical outcomes of ENBD tube placement after clearance of CBD stones. In this study, we found that ENBD is only beneficial when an endoscopic papillary balloon dilatation procedure has been performed.