ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02595853).

In Europe, the prevalence of gambling disorders in the general population ranges from 0.15 to 6.6%. Professional athletes are known for having risk factors for addictive behaviors, such as young age or sensation seeking, though no study has yet tried to evaluate the prevalence of gambling and gambling disorders among this specific population. The goals of this study were to estimate the prevalence of gambling, problematic or not, among European professional athletes and to explore the factors that are associated with gambling practice and gambling problems in professional athletes. A self-completion questionnaire was specifically designed for this study. The questionnaires were distributed by European Union athletes to professional ice hockey, rugby, handball, basketball, football, indoor football, volleyball, and cricket teams in Spain, France, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. Socio-demographic variables (age, sex, education, marital and parental status, sport, country of birth, and country of practice), variables linked to gambling (gambling habits, screening of gambling problems with the Lie/Bet questionnaire, and gambling related cognitions), and impulsive behavior data (urgency, premeditation, perseverance, and sensation seeking [UPPS]-Short Form questionnaire) were gathered. There were 1,236 questionnaires filled out. The percentage of professional athletes that had gambled at least once during the previous year was 56.6%. The prevalence of problem gambling, current or past, was 8.2%. A certain number of variables were associated with the gambling status. In particular, betting on one's own team (OR = 4.1, CI [1.5-11.5]), betting online (OR = 2.9, CI [1.6-5.4]), gambling regularly (OR = 4.0, CI [2.1-7.6]), and having a high positive urgency score (OR = 1.5, CI [1.3-1.7]) were associated with gambling problems, current or past, among professional athletes. Professional athletes are particularly exposed to both gambling and problem gambling.

Endoscopic sphincterotomy plus large-balloon dilation (ES-LBD) has been reported as an alternative to endoscopic sphincterotomy for the removal of bile duct stones. This multicenter study compared complete endoscopic sphincterotomy with vs. without large-balloon dilation for the removal of large bile duct stones. This is the first randomized multicenter study to evaluate these procedures in patients with exclusively large common bile duct (CBD) stones. Between 2010 and 2015, 150 patients with one or more common bile duct stones ≥ 13 mm were randomized to two groups: 73 without balloon dilation (conventional group), 77 with balloon dilation (ES-LBD group). Mechanical lithotripsy was subsequently performed only if the stones were too large for removal through the papilla. Endoscopic sphincterotomy was complete in both groups. Patients could switch to ES-LBD if the conventional procedure failed. There was no between-group difference in number and size of stones. CBD stone clearance was achieved in 74.0 % of patients in the conventional group and 96.1 % of patients in the ES-LBD group ( < 0.001). Mechanical lithotripsy was needed significantly more often in the conventional group (35.6 % vs. 3.9 %; < 0.001). There was no difference in terms of morbidity (9.3 % in the conventional group vs. 8.1 % in the ES-LBD group; = 0.82). The cost and procedure time were not significantly different between the groups overall, but became significantly higher for patients in the conventional group who underwent mechanical lithotripsy. The conventional procedure failed in 19 patients, 15 of whom underwent a rescue ES-LBD procedure that successfully cleared all stones. Complete endoscopic sphincterotomy with large-balloon dilation for the removal of large CBD stones has similar safety but superior efficiency to conventional treatment, and should be considered as the first-line step in the treatment of large bile duct stones and in rescue treatment.Trial registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02592811).