| Literature DB >> 22654900 |
Siriboon Attasaranya1, Nisa Netinasunton, Theeratus Jongboonyanuparp, Jaksin Sottisuporn, Teepawit Witeerungrot, Teerha Pirathvisuth, Bancha Ovartlarnporn.
Abstract
Background and Aim. EUS-guided intervention (EGI) for biliary therapy has been increasingly used in recent years. This report aims to describe the spectrum and experience of EUS-guided interventions in biliary diseases in a single-tertiary center. Methods. All patients with EGI were analyzed retrospectively by retrieving data from a prospectively stored endoscopic database between January 2006 and September 2010. Results. There were 31 cases with EGIs (17 female, 14 male) with a mean age ± SD of 58.03 ± 16.89 years. The majority of cases (17/31; 55%) were ampullary or pancreatic cancers with obstructive jaundice. The major indications for EGI were obstructive jaundice (n = 16) and cholangitis (n = 9). The EGIs were technically successful in 24 of the 31 cases (77%). The success rate for the first 3 years was 8 of 13 procedures (61.5%) as compared to that of the last 2 years (16/18 procedures (89%); P = 0.072). Twenty-three of the 24 cases (96%) with technical success for stent placement also had clinical success in terms of symptom improvement. The complications were major in 4 (13%) and minor in 7 (23%) patients. Conclusion. The EUS-guided drainage for biliary obstruction, acute cholecystitis, bile leak, and biloma was an attractive alternative and should be handled in expert centers.Entities:
Year: 2012 PMID: 22654900 PMCID: PMC3357930 DOI: 10.1155/2012/680753
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Gastroenterol Res Pract ISSN: 1687-6121 Impact factor: 2.260
Indications for EUS-guided interventions.
| Indication | Number of cases |
|---|---|
| Obstructive jaundice | 16 |
| Cholangitis | 9 |
| Cholecystitis | 2 |
| Choledochojejunostomy stenosis | 1 |
| PTBD replacementf | 1 |
| Bile leak | 1 |
| Biloma | 1 |
fPercutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage.
Type of drainage, success rate, and type of stent inserted.
| Type of procedure | No. | Success |
|---|---|---|
| Hepaticogastrostomy | 16 | 13 |
| Choledochoduodenostomy | 9 | 5 |
| Cholecystoduodenostomy | 4 | 3 |
| Biloma drainage | 1 | 1 |
| Antegrade placement of metallic stent in CBD through the duodenal wall | 1 | 1 |
|
| ||
| Total | 31 | 24 |
|
| ||
| Type of stent | ||
|
| ||
| Plastic, double pigtail | 22 | |
| Metallic, partially covered | 4 | |
Complications, treatment, and outcomes.
| Number | Outcome | |
|---|---|---|
| Major complications in technical success | ||
| Stent slipped off 2 days later | 1 | Surgery done, recovered |
| Major complications in technical failure | ||
| Metallic stent deployed outside gastric wall | 1 | Surgery done, recovered |
| Duodenal perforation | 1 | Surgery done, recovered |
| Bile peritonitis | 1 | Surgery done, deteriorated |
| Total major complications | 4 | |
| Minor complications in technical success | ||
| Severe abdominal pain | 1 | Resolved with medical treatment |
| Postprocedure fever | 2 | Recovered with antibiotics |
| Mild abdominal pain | 1 | Recovered |
| Retrogastric collection | 1 | Recovered with PCD+ |
| Minor complications in technical failure | ||
| Bleeding | 1 | Stopped spontaneously |
| Postprocedure fever | 1 | Recovered with antibiotics |
| Total minor complications | 7 | |
| Total overall complications | 11 | 10 with recovery |
+Percutaneous drainage.