ClinicalTrials.gg
CompletedNCT05186350Updated Feb 21, 2023

SpyGlass Versus ESWL for Large Common Bile Duct Stones

An interventional study of ERCP+ SpyGlass and ESWL+ ERCP in Choledocholithiasis and Common Bile Duct Calculi, sponsored by First People's Hospital of Hangzhou. Completed at 1 site in China. Open to participants aged 18 Years to 80 Years. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2023-02-21.

Sponsored by First People's Hospital of Hangzhou · Not applicable, Interventional, and Treatment

From the registry’s dates

  • Registered 1 year after the study started (first participant enrolled Jan 2021, registered Jan 2022).
Phase
Not applicable
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
65
Allocation
Non-randomized
Ages
18 Years to 80 Years
Sex
All
01

Study summary

Overall stone clearance with endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) for choledocholithiasis is a big problem, especially for stones with a diameter greater than 3cm. After ERCP failure, surgery was the option but patients not suitable for surgery were treated through stenting but had to undergo multiple ERCPs and show a success rate of only 44-96%. Recently, choledochoscopic laser, electrohydraulic lithotripsy, SpyGlass, or extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) have been applied for the treatment of huge bile duct stones. The present study aims to compare the efficacy and safety outcomes of SpyGlass direct vision lithotripsy and ESWL procedures for the removal of large bile duct stones.

Read the detailed description

ESWL was first used for the removal of renal calculi and ureteral calculi however, now a day is being used for biliary calculi. It has the advantages of simple operation, low cost, and higher safety. Recent studies show that the procedure time for ESWL is also shorter and the utilization rate of mechanical lithotripsy was effectively reduced with fewer complications. But It is difficult for ESWL to break the stones larger than 3cm into small pieces. So SpyGlass-guided laser lithotripsy is used. Spyglass has been used in clinics for more than ten years. Recently, a study reported difficult bile duct stones that were treated with SpyGlass-guided laser lithotripsy that shows promising results. Compared with laser lithotripsy under X-ray monitoring, there is no significant difference in stone removal rate and complication rate between the two methods. However, the effect of lithotripsy under Spyglass direct vision is better, which can break large stones into smaller pieces, thus making it easier to take stones. The investigators conducted the current study to compare the therapeutic outcome and complications between SpyGlass direct vision lithotripsy and ESWL procedures for the removal of large bile duct stones

02

Conditions studied

  • Choledocholithiasis
  • Common Bile Duct Calculi

Keywords

  • Choledocholithiasis; SpyGlass; ESWL;ERCP
03

In context

Choledocholithiasis

109 studies on the registry are indexed under Choledocholithiasis; 24 are open to participants now.

This study's enrollment of 65 is below the median of 100 across 76 interventional studies indexed under Choledocholithiasis.

Browse Choledocholithiasis studies →

Lead sponsor

First People's Hospital of Hangzhou is the lead sponsor of 73 studies on the registry; 28 are open to participants now.

Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
18 Years to 80 Years
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
No

Go through the criteria one by one — yes, no or not sure — and take the list to your doctor or the study team. Kept in this browser only.

Inclusion criteria

  • large bile duct stones (≥10 mm)

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • pregnancy
  • refusal of written
  • Patients with benign or malignant biliary stricture
  • to ERCP exist
  • Complicated with acute pancreatitis or acute cholangitis
  • Coagulation dysfunction#thrombocytopenia
  • Patients after gastrointestinal reconstruction
Terms in these criteria, in plain language(2)

Underlined terms in the criteria open these too. Explained by clinicaltrials.gg, not part of the registry record. The study team decides who can take part.

Informed consent

Before you join, the study team explains what taking part involves — its purpose, what happens, the risks and possible benefits — and answers your questions, so you can decide freely. Consent is usually recorded on a form (the informed consent form, ICF) signed by you or, where the law allows, by someone legally authorised to decide for you.

You can keep asking questions during the study, you are told of new information that matters, and you can choose to leave at any time.

Contraindication

A reason a treatment, test or procedure should not be given to a particular person, such as an allergy, another illness or a medicine they take.

05

Study design

Phase
Not applicable
Primary purpose
Treatment
Allocation
Non-randomized
Intervention model
Parallel assignment
Masking
Double (Participant, Care provider)
Enrollment
65 participants (actual)

Study arms

  • Active comparator
    SpyGlass group

    ERCP plus SpyGlass group

    Procedure: ERCP+ SpyGlass

  • Active comparator
    ESWL group

    ERCP plus ESWL

    Procedure: ESWL+ ERCP

Interventions

  • ProcedureERCP+ SpyGlass

    SpyGlass direct Vision guided laser lithotripsy

  • ProcedureESWL+ ERCP

    ESWL + Stone removal through ERCP

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Clearance rate(percentage)

    Stone clearance ratio

    Time frame: 1 month

  2. Number of sessions

    Number of ERCP procedures

    Time frame: 1 month

Secondary outcomes

  1. Complications

    Side effect of the procedures

    Time frame: 1 month

  2. Procedure Time

    Time spent for each surgery

    Time frame: Intraoperative

07

Study locations

1 site
  • Hangzhou First People's Hospital
    Hangzhou, Zhejiang 31006, China
08

References and documents

Publications

  • Tao T, Zhang M, Zhang QJ, Li L, Li T, Zhu X, Li MD, Li GH, Sun SX. Outcome of a session of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy before endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography for problematic and large common bile duct stones. World J Gastroenterol. 2017 Jul 21;23(27):4950-4957. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v23.i27.4950. PubMed 28785149 ↗
  • [French comment on article Cholangioscopy-guided lithotripsy for difficult bile duct stone clearance in a single session of ERCP: results from a large multinational registry demonstrate high success rates]. Endoscopy. 2019 Oct;51(10):1006-1007. doi: 10.1055/a-1000-5911. Epub 2019 Sep 26. No abstract available. French. PubMed 31557778 ↗
  • Manes G, Paspatis G, Aabakken L, Anderloni A, Arvanitakis M, Ah-Soune P, Barthet M, Domagk D, Dumonceau JM, Gigot JF, Hritz I, Karamanolis G, Laghi A, Mariani A, Paraskeva K, Pohl J, Ponchon T, Swahn F, Ter Steege RWF, Tringali A, Vezakis A, Williams EJ, van Hooft JE. Endoscopic management of common bile duct stones: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) guideline. Endoscopy. 2019 May;51(5):472-491. doi: 10.1055/a-0862-0346. Epub 2019 Apr 3. PubMed 30943551 ↗

Individual participant data

Plan to share: No

09

Timeline

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
ElapsedEstimatedEstimated, not yet reachedSimilar studies: half by the dot; the band is the middle halfHalf of similar studies reached it by the dot; the band is the middle half, from a quarter to three quarters

Ran from Jan 2021 to primary completion in Dec 2022, 23 months.

Of 41 non-industry interventional studies with no phase under Choledocholithiasis, half reached primary completion within 21 months of starting (the median), counting those still running; a quarter within 12 and three quarters within 36. This study's 23 months is close to that.

Counting every sponsor, half of 43 studies reached it within 21 months; a quarter within 12 and three quarters within 36.

How these figures are worked out, and which studies are left out of them.

Registered
Jan 6, 2022
First posted
Jan 11, 2022
StartActual
Jan 1, 2021
Primary completionActual
Dec 1, 2022
CompletionActual
Jan 25, 2023
Last update
Feb 21, 2023
What these dates mean
Start.
When the first participant enrolled; while estimated, when the study expects to open to recruitment.
Primary completion.
When the last participant was examined or treated to collect data for the study's main question, its primary outcome. A study that stopped early gives the date its data collection stopped.
Completion.
When the last participant's last visit took place, for every outcome, secondary ones and side effects included: the end of the study. Often later than primary completion, sometimes the same day.
Actual and Est.
Actual means the registry says the date has happened. Est. (estimated) is a date the sponsor plans or expects. It can still move, and the sponsor is expected to change it to actual once it has passed.
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on Feb 21, 2023, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
10

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT05186350
Lead sponsor
First People's Hospital of Hangzhou
Responsible party
Jianfeng Yang (Professor, First People's Hospital of Hangzhou) — Principal investigator
First posted
Jan 11, 2022
Start date
Jan 1, 2021
Primary completion
Dec 1, 2022
Completion
Jan 25, 2023
Last update
Feb 21, 2023

Study contacts

Jianfeng Yang, Doctor
principal investigator · Affilated Hangzhou First People Hospital

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
Yes
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is completed, as verified in Feb 2023. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion