Spiral basket geometry improves procedural efficiency and reduces device escalation in small bile duct stones: a multicenter randomized controlled trial (ESCAPE trial)
In brief
Spiral basket clears small bile-duct stones on first attempt in 98% of cases versus 85% with
In a multicenter RCT of 193 patients with stones up to 8 mm, the spiral-configured 8-wire basket achieved first-line success without device escalation in 97.9% versus 85.4% for the standard basket (NNT ≈ 8), using fewer sweeps, shortening procedure time by about 1½ minutes, and lowering device costs by roughly $100. Stone-clearance rates and adverse events were similar, and the device was not compared with balloon extraction.
- Journal
- Endoscopy (Q1)
- Published
- 29 July 2026
- Study design
- Randomized controlled trial
- Evidence level
- Level 1, High (CEBM 1b)
- Authors
- Takeshi Ogura, Kohsaku Ohnishi, Takamitsu Sato, Hidemasa Kawabata, Hajime Imai, Nao Fujimori, et al.
- PMID
- 42526878
- DOI
- 10.1055/a-2924-7286
Why clinicians should know about it
- Picked for Gastroenterology (top studies of the week, 2 August 2026): Spiral basket RCT improves efficiency for small bile duct stones
Abstract
Background and study aims The optimal first-line device for ERCP removal of small common bile duct stones (CBDS) remains uncertain. Whether basket geometry-independent of device category-influences procedural efficiency has not been evaluated in a randomized trial. We aimed to compare a spiral-configured 8-wire basket with a standard 8-wire basket for small CBDS. Patients and Methods In this multicenter randomized controlled trial, patients with CBDS ≤8 mm were randomly assigned (1:1) to stone extraction using a standard or spiral-configured 8-wire basket. Results Among 200 randomized patients, 193 underwent basket insertion (spiral group, n=97; standard group, n=96). First-line procedural success without device escalation within 10 minutes was significantly higher in the spiral group than in the standard group (97.9% vs 85.4%, 95% CI 4.9-20.1; p=0.004), corresponding to a number needed to treat of 8. The spiral basket required fewer sweeps (2.71±1.41 vs 3.31±1.67; p=0.01) and shorter procedural time (3.96±2.86 min vs 5.48±4.38 min; p=0.01). Rates of adverse events were comparable between groups. Mean device-related costs were lower in the spiral group (mean difference -USD108; bootstrap 95% CI -185 to -42). Conclusions A spiral basket configuration improved early procedural efficiency and reduced device escalation and device-related costs, without improving the final stone-clearance rate or increasing adverse events. The spiral basket was not compared with balloon extraction and should not be interpreted as superior to it. Although the device evaluated is currently available primarily in Japan, the geometric principle underlying its advantage may inform device development more broadly. (UMIN000055497).
Abstract as published, via PubMed.
For healthcare professionals. The summary is generated by AI from the published abstract, and the evidence level is assigned automatically from the study design on the Oxford CEBM hierarchy. Neither is medical advice. Read the full paper before changing practice.