Recent advances in endoscopic ultrasonography-guided biliary interventions

Table 1 Published data of endoscopic ultrasonography-guided choledochoduodenostomy (EUS-CDS or HGS) (n > 20)

Ref.	No. of patients	Study design	CDS or HGS	Stent	Technical success	Complication rate	Patency	Complication
Park et al[9]	55	P	CDS, HGS	PS, MS	92, 100	21, 19	152, 132	Peritonitis, pneumoperitoneum, Bleeding
Hara et al[11]	18	P	CDS	PS	94	17	272	Peritonitis, hemobilia
Khashab et al[25]	20	R	CDS, HGS	PS, MS	100	10	-	NA
Kawakubo et al[8]	64	R	CDS, HGS	PS, MS	95, 95	14, 30	-	Bile leak, stent misplacement, bleeding
Hara et al[12]	18	P	CDS	MS	94	11	NR	peritonitis
Vila et al[10]	65	R	CDS, HGS	NA	86, 65	15, 29	-	Biloma, bleeding, perforation, pancreatitis, cholangitis, hematoma, abscess, pseudocyst
Dhir et al[13]	30	R	CDS, HGS	MS	92.3	20	-	Cholangitis, perforation, bile leak, pneumoperitoneum, death

P: Prospective; R: Retrospective; CDS: Choledochoduodenostomy; HGS: Hepaticogastrostomy; PS: Plastic stent; MS: Metallic stent; NA: Not available; NR: Not reached.

Table 2 Published data of endoscopic ultrasonography-guided gallbladder drainage (n > 10)

Ref.	No. of patients	Study design	Stent	Technical success	Complication rate	Complication
Jang et al[33]	30	P	ENBD	97%	7%	Pneumoperitoneum
Choi et al[32]	63	R	MS	98%	5%	Perforation, pneumoperitoneum

P: Prospective; R: Retrospective; ENBD: Endoscopic nasobiliary drainage; MS: Metallic stent.

Table 3 Published data of endoscopic ultrasonography-guided rendezvous procedure (n > 40)

Ref.	No. of patients	Access route	Technical success	Complication rate	Complication
Maranki et al[36]	49	TD, TH	63%	16%	Pneumoperitoneum, bleeding, peritonitis, aspiration pneumonia
Iwashita et al[37]	40	TD, TH	73%	13%	Pancreatitis, pneumoperitoneum, sepsis
Shah et al[38]	74	NA	74%	8%	Pancreatitis, bile leak, perforation
Dhir et al[39]	58	TD	98%	3%	Bile leak
Vila et al[10]	60	NA	68%	22%	Biloma, bleeding, Perforation, pancreatitis, cholangitis, hematoma, abscess, pseudocyst

NA: Not available; TD: Transduodenal route; TH: Transhepatic route.

Table 4 Published data of endoscopic ultrasonography-guided antegrade treatment (n > 10)

Ref.	No. of patients	Study design	Stent	Technical success rate	Complication rate	Complication
Shah et al[38]	16	R	MS	81%	6%	Hematoma
Park et al[41]	14	P	MS	57%	0%	-
Dhir et al[42]	35	R	MS	97%	23%	Bleeding, cholangitis, bile leak, pneumoperitoneum
Ogura et al[43]	12	R	MS	100%	8%	Pancreatitis

MS: Metallic stent; P: Prospective; R: Retrospective.

Table 5 Important features of each procedure

	EUS-BEA	EUS-RV	EUS-AT
Indication	Patients with malignant biliary obstruction after failed ERCP	Patients with failed biliary cannulation in ERCP	Patients with malignant biliary obstruction after failed ERCP
Advantage	Not traversing the malignant stricture	Leading to ERCP related procedure	Possible in patients with altered upper GI anatomy
Weak point	Necessity of fistula dilation	Difficult guidewire manipulation	Difficult guidewire manipulation
	Lack of dedicated stent	Difficulty in patient who was not accessible to the papilla

ERCP: Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography; EUS-RV: Endoscopic ultrasonography-guided rendezvous procedure; EUS-BEA: Endoscopic ultrasonography-guided bilioenteric anastomosis; GI: Gastrointestinal; US-AT: Endoscopic ultrasonography-guided antegrade treatment.