Current status of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in patients with surgically altered anatomy

Table 1 Success rates of conventional duodenoscope and forward-view endoscope in Billroth II operation

Ref.	Endoscope type	Operation type	Success rate of afferent loop intubation, %	Success rate of cannulation, %	Complication rate, %
Jang et al[44]	Conventional side-view duodenoscope	Billroth II	100	100	0
Bove et al[9]	Conventional side-view duodenoscope	Billroth II	86.7	93.8	2.7
Cicek et al[11]	Conventional side-view duodenoscope	Billroth II	86.4	88.2	10.2
Wu et al[13]	Conventional side-view duodenoscope	Billroth II	90.5	88.6	12.5
Kim and Kim[67]	Conventional side-view duodenoscope	Billroth II	100	100	4
Park et al[68]	Conventional side-view duodenoscope	Billroth II	86.8	92.3	3.6
Wang et al[8]	Conventional side-view duodenoscope	Billroth II	62.5	100	10.3
	Forward-view gastroscope Standard colonoscope	Billroth II	84.6	81.8
		Billroth II	93.5	91.2
	Cap-fitted forward-view gastroscope/ without cap	Billroth II	92.5/88.6	91.1	3
Park et al[38]	Cap-fitted forward-view gastroscope	Billroth II	100	100	10
Lin et al[69]	Forward-view gastroscope	Billroth II	76.8	81.4	0

DBE: Double balloon enteroscope; RYGB: Roux-en-Y gastric bypass.

Table 2 Success rate of long and short double-balloon enteroscope-assisted endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in surgical altered anatomy

Ref.	Endoscope type	Operation type	Successful of afferent loop intubation, %	Successful of cannulation, %	Complication, %
Shah et al[10]	Long DBE	Overall	71	88	NA
		RYGB	87	67	NA
		non-RYGB	58	58	NA
Katanuma et al[15]	Long DBE	Roux-en-Y reconstruction	75	NA	NA
		Hepaticojejunostomy	80	NA	NA
		Billroth II	100	NA	NA
	Short DBE	Roux-en-Y reconstruction	97.1	NA	NA
		Hepaticojejunostomy	87.5	NA	NA
		Billroth II	100	NA	NA
		Whipple	95.7	NA	NA
		Liver transplantation	88.9	NA	NA
Shimatani et al[70]	Short DBE	Overall	97	98	5
		Billroth II	100	100	NA
		Total gastrectomy	95	96	NA
		Whipple	100	100	NA
Cheng et al[71]	DBE	Billroth II	95	87	6.5
Osoegawa et al[35]	Short DBE	Overall	96	89	3.5
		Billroth II	95	89	NA
		Roux-en-Y reconstruction	96	88	NA
		Whipple	100	100	NA
Skinner et al[24]	Long DBE	RYGB	82	NA	NA
Siddiqui et al[72]	Short DBE	Overall	81	90	8.8
		RYGB	82	91	NA
		Billroth II	100	100	NA
		Whipple	95	84	NA
		Hepaticojejunostomy	100	100	NA
Shimatani et al[73]	Short DBE	Overall	97.7	96.4	10.6
		Roux-en-Y reconstruction	97	97	NA
		Whipple	100	98	NA
		Billroth II	96.2	100	NA
Mizukawa et al[49]	Short DBE	Hepaticojejunostomy	100	NA	7

DBE: Double balloon enteroscope; RYGB: Roux-en-Y gastric bypass.

Table 3 Success rates of long and short single-balloon enteroscope-assisted endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in surgically altered anatomy

Ref.	Endoscope type	Operation type	Success rate of afferent loopIntubation, %	Success rate of cannulation, %	Complication rate, %
Inamdar et al[74]	Long and short SBE	RYGB, hepaticojejunostomy, and Whipple	80.9	61.7	6.5
Trindade et al[75]	Long SBE	RYGB, hepaticojejunostomy, and Whipple	87.5	78.57	NA
Obana et al[76]	Long SBE	Total and distal gastrectomy with Roux-en-Y reconstruction	72.7	85.7	2.4
	Short SBE		87.5	71.4
Shah et al[10]	Long SBE	RYGB	73	59	12
		Non-RYGB	65	61
Kurzynske et al[77]	Long SBE	Overall	100	88	0
Abu Dayyeh et al[19]	Long SBE	Overall	80.9	69.4	NA
Lee et al[78]	Long SBE	Long-limb Roux-en-Y reconstruction	69	60	NA
Itokawa et al[17]	Long SBE and short SBE	Hepaticojejunostomy	92.9	100	1.6
		Whipple	82.4	96
Wang et al[40]	Long SBE	Billroth II, hepaticojejunostomy, Whipple, and Roux-en-Y reconstruction	92.3	90	12.5
Kawamura et al[79]	Long SBE	Roux-en-Y gastrectomy	91.7	58.3	2.2
Iwai et al[16]	Short SBE	Billroth II	90	89	0
		Roux-en-Y reconstruction	92	88	11.5
Yamauchi et al[80]	Short SBE	Billroth II	88	86	14.3
		Roux-en-Y gastrectomy	91	90	21.1
		Hepaticojejunostomy	100	100	0
Yane et al[81]	Short SBE	Overall	92.6	81.8	12
		Billroth II	100	95	NA
		Whipple	97.5	75.9	NA
		Roux-en-Y gastrectomy	95.6	88.9	NA
		Hepaticojejunostomy	81.4	79.7	NA

SBE: Single balloon enteroscope; RYGB: Roux-en-Y gastric bypass.

Table 4 Success rates of spiral enteroscope-assisted endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in surgically altered anatomy

Ref.	Operation type	Success rate of afferent loop intubation, %	Success rate of cannulation, %	Complication rate, %
Lennon et al[20]	RYGB and other Roux-en-Y reconstruction	40	87.5	3.5
Ali et al[21]	RYGB and other Roux-en-Y reconstruction	86	100	0
Zouhairi et al[22]	RYGB, Billroth II, and hepaticojejunostomy	76.2	81.3	23.8
Shah[82]	RYGB, hepaticojejunostomy, Whipple, and post-gastrectomy	88	79	12.4
Wagh et al[23]	RYGB, Whipple, Billroth II, and hepaticojejunostomy	77	67	0

RYGB: Roux-en-Y gastric bypass.

Table 5 Characteristics of enteroscope types used for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography

Scope type, release year	Long DBE	Long DBE	Long SBE	Short DBE	Short SBE	Short DBE
	EN-450T5, 2004	EN-580T, 2013	SIF-Q260, 2007	EI-530B, 2011	SIF-H290S, 2017	EN-530T, 2016
View of direction	Forward	Forward	Forward	Forward	Forward	Forward
Working length in mm	2000	2000	2000	1520	1520	1520
Total length in mm	2300	2300	2305	1820	1840	1820
Working channel diameter in mm	2.8	3.2	2.8	2.8	3.2	3.2
Outer diameter in mm	9.4	9.4	9.2	9.4	9.2	9.4
Angle of view	140º	140º	120º	140º	120º	140º
Water jet channel	No	No	No	No	Yes	No
Passive bending part	No	No	No	No	Yes	No

DBE: Double balloon enteroscope; SBE: Single balloon enteroscope.

Table 6 Success rates of double balloon enteroscope, single balloon enteroscope, and spiral enteroscope in surgically altered anatomy

Ref.	Operation type	DBE	SBE	SE	Overall	P value
Shah et al[10]	RYGB, hepaticojejunostomy, post-gastrectomy and Whipple	74%	69%	72%	71%	0.722
Skinner et al[24]	RYGB, Whipple, hepaticojejunostomy and Billroth II	89%	82%	72%	74%	NA
Lennon et al[20]	Roux-en-Y reconstruction	NA	100%	87.5%	93.8%	1
Shah et al[83]	Long-limb surgical bypass	74%	69%	72%	71%	0.887

DBE: Double balloon enteroscope; SBE: Single balloon enteroscope; SE: Spiral enteroscope; RYGB: Roux-en-Y gastric bypass.

Table 7 Success rates of stone removal in Billroth II reconstruction in different ampullary interventions

Ref.	Number of patients	Endoscope used	Ampullary intervention	First session success rate, %	Overall success rate, %	Complication
Park et al[38]	10	Cap-fitted forward-view endoscope	EST	30	100	0
Kim et al[41]	9	Side-view endoscope	EST + EPLBD	55.5	89	0
Choi et al[84]	26	End-view and side-view endoscope	EST + EPLBD	76.9	100	0
Itoi et al[85]	11	End-view endoscope	EST + EPLBD	100	100	0
Lee et al[86]	13	Cap-fitted forward-view endoscope	EPBD	66.6	100	23
Cheng et al[71]	77	DBE	EPLBD	75	100	4
Jang et al[44]	40	Side-view endoscope	EPLBD	92.5	100	15

EST: Endoscopic sphincterotomy; EPLBD: Endoscopic papillary large balloon dilatation.

Table 8 Efficacy of endoscopic ultrasonography-guided endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in surgically altered anatomy

Ref.	Method	Patients, n	One- or two- stage ERCP	Technical success rate, %	Clinical success rate, %	Complication rate, %
Bukhari et al[62]	EUS-GG-ERCP (LAMS)	30	One 26.7%	100	100	10
			Two 73.3%
Hosmer et al[57]	EUS-guided HGS	9	One	100	NA	11
Iwashita et al[58]	EUS-AG for BDS	29	One	79	72	17
Iwashita et al[60]	EUS-guided antegrade stent	20	Two	95	95	20
Khashab et al[61]	EUS-guided BD	49	Two	98	88	20
Imai et al[56]	EUS-guided HGS	42	Two	97.6	90.2	NA

Endoscopic ultrasonography-guided biliary drainage included the rendezvous technique, direct transmural ostomy formation (hepatogastrostomy, hepatoduodenostomy, hepatojejunostomy), and antegrade stenting. HGS: Hepatogastrostomy; EUS: Endoscopic ultrasonography; ERCP: Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography; EUS-BD: Endoscopic ultrasonography-guided biliary drainage; LAMS: Lumen-apposing metal stent.

Table 9 Outcome of laparoscopic-assisted endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in patients undergoing Roux-en-Y gastric bypass

Ref.	Patients, n	Laparoscopic success rate, %	Endoscopic success rate, %	Simultaneous cholecystec-tomy, %	One- or two-stage ERCP	Median hospital stay in d	Laparoscopic complication rate, %	Endoscopic complication rate, %
Habenichts Yancey et al[7]	16	100	94	31	One	3.7	0	7.6
Snauwaert et al[2]	23	91.3	100	56.5	One	2.8	0	0
Paranandi et al[65]	7	100	100	0	One	2	1	1
Abbas et al[6]	579	98	98	21	One	2	10	7
Schreiner et al[3]	24	100	100	0	One	1.67	8.3	NA
Bowman et al[5]	11	100	100	0	One	3.4	18.2	0
Saleem et al[54]	15	100	100	0	One	2	0	0

ERCP: Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography.

Table 10 Summarized efficacy of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography methods in surgically altered anatomy

	DAE-assisted ERCP	EUS-guided biliary access	Laparoscopic-assisted ERCP
Cholangiography success rate	70%-90%	95%-100%	95%-100%
Invasiveness	Minimal	Moderate	High
Skill requirement	Moderate	High	Moderate Cooperate with surgeon
Complication rate	0%-20%	10%-20%	0%-10%
Bile duct stone removal
Small stones	Easy	Easy	Easy
Large stones	Easy	Fair	Easy
Malignant stenosis drainage	Fair	Easy	Fair

DAE: Device-assisted enteroscope; EUS: Endoscopic ultrasonography; ERCP: Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography.