BACKGROUND: EUS-guided rendezvous procedure (EUS-RV) can be done by the transhepatic (TH) or the extrahepatic (EH) route. There is no data on the preferred access route when both routes are available. STUDY AIM: To compare the success, complications, and duration of hospitalization for patients undergoing EUS-RV by the TH or the EH route. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with distal common bile duct (CBD) obstruction, who failed selective cannulation, underwent EUS-RV by the TH route through the stomach or the EH route through the duodenum. RESULTS: A total of 35 patients were analysed (17 TH, 18 EH). The mean procedure time was significantly longer for the TH group (34.4 vs. 25.7 min; p = 0.0004). There was no difference in the technical success (94.1 vs. 100%). However, the TH group had a higher incidence of post-procedure pain (44.1 vs. 5.5%; p = 0.017), bile leak (11.7 vs. 0; p = 0.228), and air under diaphragm (11.7 vs. 0; p = 0.228). All bile leaks were small and managed conservatively. Duration of hospitalization was significantly higher for the TH group (2.52 vs. 0.17 days; p = 0.015). CONCLUSIONS: EUS-RV has similar success rate by the TH or the EH route. However, the TH route has higher post-procedure pain, longer procedure time, and longer duration of hospitalization. The EH route should be preferred for EUS-RV in patients with distal CBD obstruction when both access routes are technically feasible.
BACKGROUND: EUS-guided rendezvous procedure (EUS-RV) can be done by the transhepatic (TH) or the extrahepatic (EH) route. There is no data on the preferred access route when both routes are available. STUDY AIM: To compare the success, complications, and duration of hospitalization for patients undergoing EUS-RV by the TH or the EH route. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with distal common bile duct (CBD) obstruction, who failed selective cannulation, underwent EUS-RV by the TH route through the stomach or the EH route through the duodenum. RESULTS: A total of 35 patients were analysed (17 TH, 18 EH). The mean procedure time was significantly longer for the TH group (34.4 vs. 25.7 min; p = 0.0004). There was no difference in the technical success (94.1 vs. 100%). However, the TH group had a higher incidence of post-procedure pain (44.1 vs. 5.5%; p = 0.017), bile leak (11.7 vs. 0; p = 0.228), and air under diaphragm (11.7 vs. 0; p = 0.228). All bile leaks were small and managed conservatively. Duration of hospitalization was significantly higher for the TH group (2.52 vs. 0.17 days; p = 0.015). CONCLUSIONS:EUS-RV has similar success rate by the TH or the EH route. However, the TH route has higher post-procedure pain, longer procedure time, and longer duration of hospitalization. The EH route should be preferred for EUS-RV in patients with distal CBD obstruction when both access routes are technically feasible.
Authors: Janak N Shah; Fernando Marson; Frank Weilert; Yasser M Bhat; Thai Nguyen-Tang; Richard E Shaw; Kenneth F Binmoeller Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2011-10-21 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Peter B Cotton; Glenn M Eisen; Lars Aabakken; Todd H Baron; Matt M Hutter; Brian C Jacobson; Klaus Mergener; Albert Nemcek; Bret T Petersen; John L Petrini; Irving M Pike; Linda Rabeneck; Joseph Romagnuolo; John J Vargo Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2010-03 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Hugo Gonçalo Guedes; Roberto Iglesias Lopes; Joel Fernandez de Oliveira; Everson Luiz de Almeida Artifon Journal: World J Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2015-10-25
Authors: Muhammad Ali Khan; Ali Akbar; Todd H Baron; Sobia Khan; Mehmat Kocak; Yaseen Alastal; Tariq Hammad; Wade M Lee; Aijaz Sofi; Everson L A Artifon; Ali Nawras; Mohammad Kashif Ismail Journal: Dig Dis Sci Date: 2015-10-30 Impact factor: 3.199
Authors: Carlo Fabbri; Carmelo Luigiano; Andrea Lisotti; Vincenzo Cennamo; Clara Virgilio; Giancarlo Caletti; Pietro Fusaroli Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2014-07-14 Impact factor: 5.742