EUS-guided hepaticoduodenostomy combined with antegrade metal stenting using an ultrathin flexible delivery system

Inoue, Tadahisa; Ibusuki, Mayu; Kitano, Rena; Kobayashi, Yuji; Ito, Kiyoaki; Yoneda, Masashi

doi:10.1055/a-1326-1611

Cited by 3 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…13 Retrospective studies have shown that EUS-HDS could be an alternative drainage modality to conventional PTBD for right biliary system drainage after failed ERCP. [13][14][15][16] Nevertheless, to our knowledge, no studies have directly compared EUS-HDS and PTBD for right biliary system drainage in patients with MHO. Recent guideline also did not mention EUS-HDS as a treatment of choice for right IHD drainage after failed ERCP in patients with MHO, unlike EUS-HGS for left IHD drainage in such patients.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For EUS‐BD for the right biliary system, transduodenal EUS‐BD, referred to as EUS‐guided hepaticoduodenostomy (EUS‐HDS), was developed to overcome such technical limitations 13 . Retrospective studies have shown that EUS‐HDS could be an alternative drainage modality to conventional PTBD for right biliary system drainage after failed ERCP 13–16 …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Endoscopic ultrasound‐guided hepaticoduodenostomy versus percutaneous drainage for right intrahepatic duct dilatation in malignant hilar obstruction

Cho,

Song,

et al. 2023

J of Gastro and Hepatol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and AimEndoscopic ultrasound (EUS)‐guided biliary drainage is being increasingly performed as an alternative to percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) to treat malignant hilar obstruction (MHO) after failed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). However, no study has compared EUS‐guided hepaticoduodenostomy (EUS‐HDS) with PTBD for right intrahepatic duct (IHD) obstruction after failed ERCP in patients with unresectable MHO.MethodsWe retrospectively reviewed the data of consecutive patients with right IHD obstruction developed by unresectable MHO who underwent EUS‐HDS or PTBD after a previous placement of a stent in the left and/or right IHD between March 2018 and October 2021. Technical success, clinical success, stent or tube‐related adverse events, frequency of reintervention, and stent patency were evaluated.ResultsA total of 42 patients (18 EUS‐HDS, 24 PTBD) were analyzed. Both groups did not show significant differences in technical success (EUS‐HDS, 94% vs PTBD, 100%; P = 0.429), clinical success (83% vs 83%; P = 0.999), early adverse events (24% vs 46%; P = 0.144), and stent or tube‐related late adverse events (29% vs 54%; P = 0.116). During follow‐up, the EUS‐HDS group had a longer median duration of patency (131 days vs 58.5 days; P = 0.041), and lower mean frequency of reinterventions per patient (0.35 vs 1.92; P = 0.030) than the PTBD group.ConclusionsEUS‐HDS showed comparable efficacy and safety to PTBD for drainage of the right biliary system and produced longer duration of patency and lower frequency of reinterventions in patients with unresectable MHO.

show abstract