Evaluation of exclusive internal endoscopic drainage for complex biloma with transluminal and transpapillary stenting.

IF 2.2 Q3 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY
Endoscopy International Open Pub Date : 2024-02-28 eCollection Date: 2024-02-01 DOI:10.1055/a-2261-3137
Jun Sakamoto, Takeshi Ogura, Saori Ueno, Atsushi Okuda, Nobu Nishioka, Akitoshi Hakoda, Yuki Uba, Mitsuki Tomita, Nobuhiro Hattori, Junichi Nakamura, Kimi Bessho, Hiroki Nishikawa
{"title":"Evaluation of exclusive internal endoscopic drainage for complex biloma with transluminal and transpapillary stenting.","authors":"Jun Sakamoto, Takeshi Ogura, Saori Ueno, Atsushi Okuda, Nobu Nishioka, Akitoshi Hakoda, Yuki Uba, Mitsuki Tomita, Nobuhiro Hattori, Junichi Nakamura, Kimi Bessho, Hiroki Nishikawa","doi":"10.1055/a-2261-3137","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background and study aims</b> Biloma is treated endoscopically with endoscopic retrograde cholangiography (ERCP) or endoscopi ultrasound-guided transluminal biloma drainage (EUS-TBD). However, almost all previous studies have used both internal and external drainage. External drainage has the disadvantages of poor cosmetic appearance and self-tube removal. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the internal endoscopic drainage for complex biloma after hepatobiliary surgery with an ERCP- or EUS-guided approach, without external drainage. <b>Patients and methods</b> This retrospective study included consecutive patients who had bilomas. A 7F plastic stent was deployed from the biloma to the duodenum in the ERCP group and the metal stent was deployed from the biloma to the stomach in the EUS-TBD group. <b>Results</b> Forty-seven patients were enrolled. The technical success rate was similar between the groups (ERCP 94% vs EUS-TBD 100%, <i>P</i> =0.371); however, mean procedure time was significantly shorter in the EUS-TBD group (16.9 minutes) than in the ERCP group (26.6 minutes) ( <i>P</i> =0.009). The clinical success rate was 87% (25 of 32 patients) in the ERCP group and 84% (11 of 13 patients) in the EUS-TBD group ( <i>P</i> =0.482). The duration of median hospital stay was significantly shorter in the EUS-TBD group (22 days) than in the ERCP group (46 days) ( <i>P</i> =0.038). There was no significant difference in procedure-associated adverse events between the groups. <b>Conclusions</b> In conclusion, ERCP and EUS-TBD are complementary techniques, each with its own merits in specific clinical scenarios. If both techniques can be performed, EUS-TBD should be considered because of the short times for the procedure, hospital stay. and biloma resolution.</p>","PeriodicalId":11671,"journal":{"name":"Endoscopy International Open","volume":"12 2","pages":"E262-E268"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10901647/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Endoscopy International Open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2261-3137","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/2/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background and study aims Biloma is treated endoscopically with endoscopic retrograde cholangiography (ERCP) or endoscopi ultrasound-guided transluminal biloma drainage (EUS-TBD). However, almost all previous studies have used both internal and external drainage. External drainage has the disadvantages of poor cosmetic appearance and self-tube removal. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the internal endoscopic drainage for complex biloma after hepatobiliary surgery with an ERCP- or EUS-guided approach, without external drainage. Patients and methods This retrospective study included consecutive patients who had bilomas. A 7F plastic stent was deployed from the biloma to the duodenum in the ERCP group and the metal stent was deployed from the biloma to the stomach in the EUS-TBD group. Results Forty-seven patients were enrolled. The technical success rate was similar between the groups (ERCP 94% vs EUS-TBD 100%, P =0.371); however, mean procedure time was significantly shorter in the EUS-TBD group (16.9 minutes) than in the ERCP group (26.6 minutes) ( P =0.009). The clinical success rate was 87% (25 of 32 patients) in the ERCP group and 84% (11 of 13 patients) in the EUS-TBD group ( P =0.482). The duration of median hospital stay was significantly shorter in the EUS-TBD group (22 days) than in the ERCP group (46 days) ( P =0.038). There was no significant difference in procedure-associated adverse events between the groups. Conclusions In conclusion, ERCP and EUS-TBD are complementary techniques, each with its own merits in specific clinical scenarios. If both techniques can be performed, EUS-TBD should be considered because of the short times for the procedure, hospital stay. and biloma resolution.

复杂胆管瘤独家内窥镜引流术与经腔镜和经乳头支架置入术的评估。
背景和研究目的 胆脂瘤可通过内镜逆行胆管造影术(ERCP)或内镜超声引导下胆脂瘤腔内引流术(EUS-TBD)进行治疗。然而,以往几乎所有的研究都采用了内引流和外引流两种方法。外引流的缺点是外观不美,而且需要自行拔管。本研究的目的是评估在ERCP或EUS引导下采用内镜内引流术治疗肝胆手术后复杂胆管瘤,而不采用外引流术的效果。患者和方法 这项回顾性研究包括连续的胆管瘤患者。ERCP 组从胆管瘤到十二指肠植入 7F 塑料支架,EUS-TBD 组从胆管瘤到胃植入金属支架。结果 47例患者入选。两组的技术成功率相似(ERCP 94% vs EUS-TBD 100%,P =0.371);但 EUS-TBD 组的平均手术时间(16.9 分钟)明显短于 ERCP 组(26.6 分钟)(P =0.009)。ERCP组的临床成功率为87%(32名患者中有25名成功),EUS-TBD组的临床成功率为84%(13名患者中有11名成功)(P =0.482)。EUS-TBD 组的中位住院时间(22 天)明显短于 ERCP 组(46 天)(P =0.038)。两组在手术相关不良事件方面无明显差异。结论 总之,ERCP 和 EUS-TBD 是互补的技术,在特定的临床情况下各有千秋。如果两种技术都能进行,则应考虑 EUS-TBD,因为其手术时间短、住院时间短、胆汁瘤消退时间短。
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
Endoscopy International Open
Endoscopy International Open GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY-
自引率
3.80%
发文量
270
×
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