Outcomes of Endoscopic Biliary Drainage in Postsurgical Anatomy Using Endoscopic Ultrasound and Enteroscopy: A Comparative Study

IF 0.4 Q4 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY
Kapil Dev Jamwal, Atul Sharma, Rajesh Kumar Padhan, Manoj Kumar Sharma
{"title":"Outcomes of Endoscopic Biliary Drainage in Postsurgical Anatomy Using Endoscopic Ultrasound and Enteroscopy: A Comparative Study","authors":"Kapil Dev Jamwal, Atul Sharma, Rajesh Kumar Padhan, Manoj Kumar Sharma","doi":"10.1055/s-0043-1775861","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Objectives Biliary obstruction is a common problem encountered in postsurgical anatomy, which may lead to serious complications if not treated promptly. Endoscopic drainage is a minimally invasive and effective treatment option for such patients. However, the optimal route of endoscopic drainage, either SBE-ERCP (single-balloon enteroscopy with endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography) or EUS-BD (endoscopic ultrasound-guided bile duct drainage), remains controversial. In this study, we aim to evaluate the feasibility and outcomes of endoscopic drainage using these two techniques in postsurgical biliary obstruction over a period of 7 years. Materials and Methods We conducted a retrospective study of patients who underwent endoscopic drainage for postsurgical biliary obstruction using SBE-ERCP or EUS-BD techniques between 2015 and 2022. The demographic details, clinical presentation, procedure duration, number of sessions required, technical success, complications, and change of procedure from SBE-ERCP to EUS-BD or vice versa were recorded. Results Seventy-five patients, predominantly females with a mean age of 48 years, underwent endoscopic drainage. Forty-eight patients underwent SBE drainage and 27 patients underwent EUS-HG (EUS-guided hepaticogastrostomy). The mean duration of procedure (44 vs. 77 minutes), number of complications (4 vs. 5), technical success rate (93.5 vs. 85%), change of procedure (0 vs. 3), and number of sessions (1.1 vs. 1.8) were significantly less in the EUS-HG as compared to SBE-ERCP. Conclusions Endoscopic biliary drainage is feasible, safe, and effective in postsurgical biliary anatomy but requires high technical expertise. The study proposes an algorithm that can be applied in such group of patients to determine the route for choosing the drainage procedure. This requires further validation with a large prospective cohort.","PeriodicalId":43098,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Digestive Endoscopy","volume":"23 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Digestive Endoscopy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0043-1775861","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract Objectives Biliary obstruction is a common problem encountered in postsurgical anatomy, which may lead to serious complications if not treated promptly. Endoscopic drainage is a minimally invasive and effective treatment option for such patients. However, the optimal route of endoscopic drainage, either SBE-ERCP (single-balloon enteroscopy with endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography) or EUS-BD (endoscopic ultrasound-guided bile duct drainage), remains controversial. In this study, we aim to evaluate the feasibility and outcomes of endoscopic drainage using these two techniques in postsurgical biliary obstruction over a period of 7 years. Materials and Methods We conducted a retrospective study of patients who underwent endoscopic drainage for postsurgical biliary obstruction using SBE-ERCP or EUS-BD techniques between 2015 and 2022. The demographic details, clinical presentation, procedure duration, number of sessions required, technical success, complications, and change of procedure from SBE-ERCP to EUS-BD or vice versa were recorded. Results Seventy-five patients, predominantly females with a mean age of 48 years, underwent endoscopic drainage. Forty-eight patients underwent SBE drainage and 27 patients underwent EUS-HG (EUS-guided hepaticogastrostomy). The mean duration of procedure (44 vs. 77 minutes), number of complications (4 vs. 5), technical success rate (93.5 vs. 85%), change of procedure (0 vs. 3), and number of sessions (1.1 vs. 1.8) were significantly less in the EUS-HG as compared to SBE-ERCP. Conclusions Endoscopic biliary drainage is feasible, safe, and effective in postsurgical biliary anatomy but requires high technical expertise. The study proposes an algorithm that can be applied in such group of patients to determine the route for choosing the drainage procedure. This requires further validation with a large prospective cohort.
内镜下胆道引流在超声内镜与肠镜下术后解剖中的效果比较研究
摘要目的胆道梗阻是术后解剖中常见的问题,如果不及时治疗,可能会导致严重的并发症。内镜下引流是一种微创、有效的治疗方法。然而,内镜下引流的最佳途径是SBE-ERCP(单球囊肠镜内镜逆行胆管造影)还是EUS-BD(超声内镜引导胆管引流)仍存在争议。在这项研究中,我们的目的是评估在7年的时间里使用这两种技术在术后胆道梗阻的内镜下引流的可行性和结果。材料和方法我们对2015年至2022年期间采用SBE-ERCP或EUS-BD技术进行术后胆道梗阻内镜引流的患者进行了回顾性研究。记录了人口统计学细节、临床表现、手术时间、所需疗程数、技术成功、并发症以及从SBE-ERCP到EUS-BD或反之亦然的手术改变。结果75例患者行内镜下引流术,主要为女性,平均年龄48岁。48例患者行SBE引流,27例患者行EUS-HG (eus引导下肝胃造口术)。与SBE-ERCP相比,EUS-HG的平均手术时间(44分钟vs. 77分钟)、并发症数量(4分钟vs. 5分钟)、技术成功率(93.5 vs. 85%)、手术改变(0 vs. 3)和手术次数(1.1 vs. 1.8)显著少于SBE-ERCP。结论内镜下胆道引流术在胆道术后解剖中是可行、安全、有效的,但对技术要求较高。本研究提出了一种算法,可应用于这类患者,以确定选择引流手术的路径。这需要进一步的大规模前瞻性队列验证。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Digestive Endoscopy
Journal of Digestive Endoscopy GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY-
自引率
28.60%
发文量
35
审稿时长
22 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Digestive Endoscopy (JDE) is the official publication of the Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy of India that has over 1500 members. The society comprises of several key clinicians in this field from different parts of the country and has key international speakers in its advisory board. JDE is a double-blinded peer-reviewed, print and online journal publishing quarterly. It focuses on original investigations, reviews, case reports and clinical images as well as key investigations including but not limited to cholangiopancreatography, fluoroscopy, capsule endoscopy etc.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信