Management of pancreaticobiliary disease using a new intra-ductal endoscope: The Texas experience

Table 1 Patient characteristics

Patient characteristics	Cases (n)
Patients	128
Male:female	71:57
Peroral usage	121
Percutaneous usage	7
Diagnostic indications	56 (44%)
Abnormal serum liver test	15
Abnormal imaging studies	38
Cholangiocarcinoma staging	3
Therapeutic indications	72 (56%)
Choledocholithiasis	41
Pancreaticolithiasis	6
Biliary strictures	25

Table 2 Diagnostic Spyglass^® indications

Diagnostic Spyglass® indications	Cases (n)
Abnormal imaging and elevated liver panel
Normal	9
Malignancy	9
Ductal ulcerations	7
Lithiasis	7
Extrinsic compression	7
Benign polypoid lesions	4
Total	43
Biliary strictures
Diagnosis modified	20/29
Diagnosis confirmed malignant	10/23
Pre-operative diagnosis unknown	17
Post-operative diagnosis malignant	9
Post-operative diagnosis benign	8

Table 3 Spyglass^® evaluation of choledocholithiasis

Spyglass® evaluation of choledocholithiasis	Cases (n)
Indications for choledochoscopy
Large choledocholithiasis	26
Mirizzi syndrome	1
Intrahepatic lithiasis	10
Lithiasis with bile duct strictures (also with intrahepatic lithiasis)	11 (7)
Maneuverability
Intrahepatic peroral advancement without difficulty	8/10
Percutaneous advancement	6/6
Holmium laser usage	3/3
Poor targeting of lesion with EHL	4/41
EHL not advanced	3/41
Overall visualization
Good	31
Fair	6
Poor	4