BACKGROUND: Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography with fluoroscopy guidance is a well-established technique for providing biliary drainage in patients with biliary obstructions. However, fluoroscopic facilities may not always be available and fluoroscopy carries a risk of radiation exposure. AIM: We retrospectively compared the procedure success rate and efficacy of ultrasound-guided endoscopic biliary drainage (UG-EBD) and fluoroscopy-guided endoscopic biliary drainage (FG-EBD) in patients with biliary obstructions. METHODS: Patients who had received either UG-EBD or FG-EBD were included in the study. Main outcome measurements included the procedure success rate, procedure time, and clinical response. RESULTS: A total of 125 patients who had undergone UG-EBD (n = 63) and FG-EBD (n = 62) were identified. The total procedure success rate was 93.7 % in the UG-EBD group and 96.8 % in the FG-EBD group without statistical difference. Also, no significant difference was found in the procedure success rate of lower or upper/middle obstructions of the common bile duct (CBD) between the 2 groups. The mean procedure time was not different between the 2 groups [UG-EBD group 24.54 (9.52) min vs. FG-EBD group 21.74 (8.77) min, p = 0.09]. There were no differences in the normalization of clinical and laboratory parameters and immediate complication between the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopic biliary drainage (EBD) under US-guidance and under fluoroscopy guidance is equally effective and safe for patients with lower or upper/middle obstructions of the CBD. The UG-EBD technique is especially suitable for special patients, such as critically ill patients, pregnant woman, etc.
BACKGROUND: Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography with fluoroscopy guidance is a well-established technique for providing biliary drainage in patients with biliary obstructions. However, fluoroscopic facilities may not always be available and fluoroscopy carries a risk of radiation exposure. AIM: We retrospectively compared the procedure success rate and efficacy of ultrasound-guided endoscopic biliary drainage (UG-EBD) and fluoroscopy-guided endoscopic biliary drainage (FG-EBD) in patients with biliary obstructions. METHODS:Patients who had received either UG-EBD or FG-EBD were included in the study. Main outcome measurements included the procedure success rate, procedure time, and clinical response. RESULTS: A total of 125 patients who had undergone UG-EBD (n = 63) and FG-EBD (n = 62) were identified. The total procedure success rate was 93.7 % in the UG-EBD group and 96.8 % in the FG-EBD group without statistical difference. Also, no significant difference was found in the procedure success rate of lower or upper/middle obstructions of the common bile duct (CBD) between the 2 groups. The mean procedure time was not different between the 2 groups [UG-EBD group 24.54 (9.52) min vs. FG-EBD group 21.74 (8.77) min, p = 0.09]. There were no differences in the normalization of clinical and laboratory parameters and immediate complication between the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopic biliary drainage (EBD) under US-guidance and under fluoroscopy guidance is equally effective and safe for patients with lower or upper/middle obstructions of the CBD. The UG-EBD technique is especially suitable for special patients, such as critically illpatients, pregnant woman, etc.
Authors: H P Wang; S P Huang; M S Sun; J H Chen; H H Wang; C C Lin; Y S Chang; C S Yang; M S Wu; J T Lin Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2000-12 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: G D De Palma; A Puzziello; G Aprea; F Persico; M Rega; P Ciamarra; F Patrone; S Masone; M Di Marino; M Persico; L Mastantuono; L Noceroni; G Persico Journal: Minerva Chir Date: 2004-08 Impact factor: 1.000
Authors: M Mutignani; A Tringali; S G Shah; V Perri; P Familiari; F Iacopini; C Spada; G Costamagna Journal: Endoscopy Date: 2007-05 Impact factor: 10.093
Authors: Danny W H Lee; Angus C W Chan; Yuk-Hoi Lam; Enders K W Ng; James Y W Lau; Bonita K B Law; Chi-wai Lai; Joseph J Y Sung; S C Sydney Chung Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2002-09 Impact factor: 9.427