BACKGROUND: Endoscopic transpapillary gallbladder drainage (ETGBD) for acute cholecystitis (AC) after self-expandable metal stent (SEMS) placement is technically challenging and there are no reports about its outcome in a several cases. This study aims to assess the outcomes of ETGBD for AC after SEMS placement. METHODS: Between April 2011 and April 2019, 314 patients underwent SEMS placement for biliary stricture. Among them, 12 of 21 patients who developed AC after SEMS placement underwent ETGBD. In general, ETGBD was performed after SEMS removal in cases in which a covered SEMS was previously placed or with the SEMS kept in place in cases in which an uncovered SEMS was previously placed. When the orifice of the cystic duct overlapped the uncovered SEMS, ETGBD was performed through the mesh of the SEMS. RESULTS: Among the 12 patients who underwent ETGBD, the previously placed SEMS was in the distal (n=8) or perihilar (n=4) bile duct. The type of SEMS placed in the distal bile duct was covered in 7 (fully covered: 6, partially covered: 1) and uncovered in 1, whereas that in the perihilar bile duct was uncovered for all. The technical success rate of ETGBD was 83.3% (10/12), and that according to the previous SEMS placement site was 75.0% (6/8) for the distal bile duct and 100% (4/4) for the perihilar bile duct. In the technically successful, the clinical success rate for AC was 90.0% (9/10). The rate of adverse event was 16.7% (2/12) (stent kink: 1, tube self-removal: 1). CONCLUSIONS: ETGBD can have relatively good outcomes for AC after SEMS placement.
BACKGROUND: Endoscopic transpapillary gallbladder drainage (ETGBD) for acute cholecystitis (AC) after self-expandable metal stent (SEMS) placement is technically challenging and there are no reports about its outcome in a several cases. This study aims to assess the outcomes of ETGBD for AC after SEMS placement. METHODS: Between April 2011 and April 2019, 314 patients underwent SEMS placement for biliary stricture. Among them, 12 of 21 patients who developed AC after SEMS placement underwent ETGBD. In general, ETGBD was performed after SEMS removal in cases in which a covered SEMS was previously placed or with the SEMS kept in place in cases in which an uncovered SEMS was previously placed. When the orifice of the cystic duct overlapped the uncovered SEMS, ETGBD was performed through the mesh of the SEMS. RESULTS: Among the 12 patients who underwent ETGBD, the previously placed SEMS was in the distal (n=8) or perihilar (n=4) bile duct. The type of SEMS placed in the distal bile duct was covered in 7 (fully covered: 6, partially covered: 1) and uncovered in 1, whereas that in the perihilar bile duct was uncovered for all. The technical success rate of ETGBD was 83.3% (10/12), and that according to the previous SEMS placement site was 75.0% (6/8) for the distal bile duct and 100% (4/4) for the perihilar bile duct. In the technically successful, the clinical success rate for AC was 90.0% (9/10). The rate of adverse event was 16.7% (2/12) (stent kink: 1, tube self-removal: 1). CONCLUSIONS: ETGBD can have relatively good outcomes for AC after SEMS placement.