2012
DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v18.i6.491
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage

Abstract: Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided biliary drainage has emerged as a minimally invasive alternative to percutaneous and surgical interventions for patients with biliary obstruction who had failed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). EUS-guided biliary drainage has become feasible due to the development of large channel curvilinear therapeutic echo-endoscopes and the use of real-time ultrasound and fluoroscopy imaging in addition to standard ERCP devices and techniques. EUS-guided biliary drai… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
24
0
2

Year Published

2012
2012
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 25 publications
(26 citation statements)
references
References 44 publications
0
24
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…External drainage has bad patient comfort, high risk for dislocation with according complications [9] and leads to the loss of bile fluid, which is necessary for digestion. Furthermore, as the emerging technique of endoscopic ultrasound-guided cholangiodrainage (EUCD) offers the possibility of internal drainage regularly, although the access rates seem to be not as high (73 to 97 %) as in PTBD [19] definitive external biliary drainage should be strictly avoided. Overall, we faced an early major adverse event rate of 7.9 % in 63 PTBDs.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…External drainage has bad patient comfort, high risk for dislocation with according complications [9] and leads to the loss of bile fluid, which is necessary for digestion. Furthermore, as the emerging technique of endoscopic ultrasound-guided cholangiodrainage (EUCD) offers the possibility of internal drainage regularly, although the access rates seem to be not as high (73 to 97 %) as in PTBD [19] definitive external biliary drainage should be strictly avoided. Overall, we faced an early major adverse event rate of 7.9 % in 63 PTBDs.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A 0.035-inch guidewire is then advanced through the EUS needle after confirming the position of the needle by bile aspiration, EUS, and fluoroscopic view. 25,26 The guidewire should be advanced to and through the ampulla and then EUS scope is exchanged with an ERCP scope. The wire is grabbed by a snare using an ERCP scope, and traditional ERCP is followed.…”
Section: Eus-guided Intrahepatic Duct Accessmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…3a-f). 25,26 In contrast to the rendezvous technique, however, no attempt is made to advance the wire toward the ampulla. Instead, the wire is advanced in retrograde fashion to the intrahepatic duct.…”
Section: Eus-guided Extrahepatic Duct Accessmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These 2 platforms, however, carried a significant mortality rate of 5-32%. 3,4 The first EUS-guided choledochoduodenostomy was reported by Giovannini et al 5 in 2001, followed by many case reports and series worldwide. The first case series by Giovannini et al 6 on EUS-guided hepaticogastrostomy was published in 2007.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%