Hazem Hammad1, Brian C Brauer1, Maximiliano Smolkin2, Robert Ryu3, Joshua Obuch4, Raj J Shah5. 1. Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO, USA. 2. Department of Medicine, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO, USA. 3. Department of Radiology, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO, USA. 4. Division of Gastroenterology, Geisinger Wyoming Valley Medical Center, Wilkes-Barre, PA, USA. 5. Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO, USA. raj.shah@ucdenver.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Biliary-enteric anastomotic strictures (AS) in long-limb surgical biliary bypass (LLBB) require percutaneous transhepatic biliary drains (PTBD), enteroscopy-assisted ERCP (E-ERCP), or surgical revision. AIM: To compare E-ERCP and PTBD for AS treatment. METHODS: E-ERCP stricturoplasty included dilation, cautery, and stent; PTBD included balloon dilation and serial drain upsizing events. RESULTS: From May 2008 to October 2015, 71 patients (37 M, median age 52) had E-ERCP (n = 45) or PTBD (n = 26) for AS in Roux-en-Y hepaticojejunostomy: liver transplant (n = 28), cholecystectomy injury revision (n = 21), other (n = 13) or Whipple's resection (n = 9). Median follow-up is 11 months (range 1-56) in 67 (94%) patients. Technical success, clinical improvement, and adverse events between E-ERCP and PTBD were similar (76% vs. 77%, p = 0.89; 82% vs. 85%, p = 0.80, and 6% vs. 5%, p = 0.60, respectively). However, E-ERCP had fewer post-procedural hospitalization days (0.2 ± 0.65 vs. 4.5±10, p = 0.0001), mean procedures (4.4 ± 6.3 vs. 9.5 ± 8, p = 0.006), and median months of treatment to resolve AS (1, range 1-22 vs. 7, range 3-23; p = 0.003). Two patients in PTBD group required surgery. CONCLUSIONS: (1) Technical success and clinical improvement are seen in the majority of LLBB patients with biliary-enteric AS undergoing E-ERCP or PTBD. (2) E-ERCP is associated with fewer procedures, post-procedure hospitalization days, and months to resolve AS. When expertise is available, E-ERCP to identify and treat AS should be considered as an alternative to PTBD.
BACKGROUND:Biliary-enteric anastomotic strictures (AS) in long-limb surgical biliary bypass (LLBB) require percutaneous transhepatic biliary drains (PTBD), enteroscopy-assisted ERCP (E-ERCP), or surgical revision. AIM: To compare E-ERCP and PTBD for AS treatment. METHODS: E-ERCP stricturoplasty included dilation, cautery, and stent; PTBD included balloon dilation and serial drain upsizing events. RESULTS: From May 2008 to October 2015, 71 patients (37 M, median age 52) had E-ERCP (n = 45) or PTBD (n = 26) for AS in Roux-en-Y hepaticojejunostomy: liver transplant (n = 28), cholecystectomy injury revision (n = 21), other (n = 13) or Whipple's resection (n = 9). Median follow-up is 11 months (range 1-56) in 67 (94%) patients. Technical success, clinical improvement, and adverse events between E-ERCP and PTBD were similar (76% vs. 77%, p = 0.89; 82% vs. 85%, p = 0.80, and 6% vs. 5%, p = 0.60, respectively). However, E-ERCP had fewer post-procedural hospitalization days (0.2 ± 0.65 vs. 4.5±10, p = 0.0001), mean procedures (4.4 ± 6.3 vs. 9.5 ± 8, p = 0.006), and median months of treatment to resolve AS (1, range 1-22 vs. 7, range 3-23; p = 0.003). Two patients in PTBD group required surgery. CONCLUSIONS: (1) Technical success and clinical improvement are seen in the majority of LLBB patients with biliary-enteric AS undergoing E-ERCP or PTBD. (2) E-ERCP is associated with fewer procedures, post-procedure hospitalization days, and months to resolve AS. When expertise is available, E-ERCP to identify and treat AS should be considered as an alternative to PTBD.
Authors: P Boraschi; G Braccini; R Gigoni; G Sartoni; E Neri; F Filipponi; F Mosca; C Bartolozzi Journal: Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2001-10 Impact factor: 2.546
Authors: Wael E A Saad; Nael E A Saad; Mark G Davies; David E Lee; Nikhil C Patel; Lawrence G Sahler; Takashi Kitanosono; Talia Sasson; David L Waldman Journal: J Vasc Interv Radiol Date: 2005-09 Impact factor: 3.464
Authors: Wael E A Saad; Mark G Davies; Nael E A Saad; David L Waldman; Lawrence G Sahler; David E Lee; Takashi Kitanosono; Talia Sasson; Nikhil C Patel Journal: J Vasc Interv Radiol Date: 2006-05 Impact factor: 3.464
Authors: H Egawa; Y Inomata; S Uemoto; K Asonuma; T Kiuchi; S Fujita; M Hayashi; M A Matamoros; K Itou; K Tanaka Journal: World J Surg Date: 2001-10 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: K D Lillemoe; G B Melton; J L Cameron; H A Pitt; K A Campbell; M A Talamini; P A Sauter; J Coleman; C J Yeo Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2000-09 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Sanjay Misra; Genevieve B Melton; J F Geschwind; Anthony C Venbrux; John L Cameron; Keith D Lillemoe Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2004-02 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Philip R de Reuver; Erik A Rauws; Marco J Bruno; Johan S Lameris; Olivier R Busch; Thomas M van Gulik; Dirk J Gouma Journal: Surgery Date: 2007-07 Impact factor: 3.982