Evaluating optimal bilateral biliary stenting in endoscopic reintervention after initial plastic stent dysfunction for unresectable malignant hilar biliary obstruction: Retrospective cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVES: The placement of plastic stents (PS), including intraductal PS (IS), is useful in patients with unresectable malignant hilar biliary obstruction (UMHBO) because of patency and ease of endoscopic reintervention (ERI). However, the optimal stent replacement method for PS remains unclear. METHODS: This retrospective study included 322 patients with UMHBO. Among them, 146 received PS placement as initial drainage (across-the-papilla PS [aPS], 54; IS, 92), whereas 75 required ERI. Eight bilateral aPS, 21 bilateral IS, and 17 bilateral self-expandable metallic stent (SEMS) placements met the inclusion criteria. Rates of technical and clinical success, adverse events, recurrent biliary obstruction (RBO), time to RBO (TRBO), overall survival, and secondary ERI were compared. RESULTS: There were no significant intergroup differences in rates of technical or clinical success, adverse events, RBO occurrence, or overall survival. The median TRBO was significantly shorter in the aPS group (47 days) than IS (91 days; P = 0.0196) and SEMS (143 days; P < 0.01) groups. Median TRBO did not differ significantly between the IS and SEMS groups (P = 0.44). On Cox multivariate analysis, the aPS group had the shortest stent patency (hazard ratio 2.67 [95% confidence interval 1.05-6.76], P = 0.038). For secondary ERI, the median endoscopic procedure time was significantly shorter in the IS (22 min) vs. SEMS (40 min) group (P = 0.034). CONCLUSIONS: Bilateral IS and SEMS placement featured prolonged patency after first ERI. Because bilateral IS placement is faster than SEMS placement and IS can be removed during secondary ERI, it may be a good option for first ERI.

Comparison of covered self-expandable metallic stents with 12-mm and 10-mm diameters for unresectable malignant distal biliary obstructions: a prospective randomized trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Covered self-expandable metallic stents have longer patency than uncovered self-expandable metallic stents for unresectable malignant distal biliary obstruction because of the prevention of tumor ingrowth, and they are removable during reintervention. One main cause of recurrent biliary obstruction in covered self-expandable metallic stents is sludge formation, which can be prevented by using large-bore stents. We evaluated the treatment results of 12-mm and 10-mm covered self-expandable metallic stents for unresectable malignant distal biliary obstructions using a randomized controlled trial. METHODS: This study was conducted between May 2016 and January 2019 and included 81 consecutive patients with unresectable malignant distal biliary obstruction. The primary endpoint was the rate of nonrecurrent biliary obstruction at 6 months after stent placement. RESULTS: The primary endpoint in the 12-mm group was significantly higher than that in the 10-mm group (P = .0369). Therefore, the median time to recurrent biliary obstruction was 172 days in the 12-mm group and 120 days in the 10-mm group. The median time to recurrent biliary obstruction in the 12-mm group was significantly longer than that in the 10-mm group (P = .0168). Using the 12-mm covered self-expandable metallic stents and receiving chemotherapy were factors affecting the rate of recurrent biliary obstruction in the multivariate analysis. CONCLUSIONS: The 12-mm covered self-expandable metallic stents provide a longer time to recurrent biliary obstruction than do 10-mm covered self-expandable metallic stents for managing unresectable malignant distal biliary obstruction. (Clinical trial registration number: UMIN000016911.).

Effect of ursodeoxycholic acid after self-expandable metal stent placement in malignant distal biliary obstruction: a propensity score-matched cohort analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Sludge occlusion is a primary reason for recurrent biliary obstruction (RBO) after self-expandable metallic stent (SEMS) placement. However, the efficacy of ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) for SEMS occlusion remains unexplored to date. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of UDCA after SEMS placement for malignant distal biliary obstruction (MDBO). METHODS: Three hundred fifty-four patients were included, of which 60 received UDCA. Additionally, we conducted a propensity score-matched cohort analysis on 110 patients with SEMS placement for MDBO to reduce selection bias. Patients were categorized into 2 groups of 55 each, based on whether they received UDCA. In the UDCA group, the treatment was administered for more than a month. The primary endpoint was the time to RBO (TRBO) after SEMS placement. The secondary endpoint was to evaluate SEMS occlusion rate and early adverse events (AEs). RESULTS: The cumulative SEMS occlusion rate was 41.8% and 18.2% in the groups with and without UDCA, respectively (P = .0119). Median TRBO was significantly longer in the control group than in the UDCA group (528 vs 154 days, P = .0381). In the multivariate analysis, UDCA administration was identified as the independent risk factor for reducing TRBO (hazard ratio, 2.28; 95% confidence interval, 1.06-4.88; P = .0348). The overall early AE rate showed insignificant differences between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Administering UDCA after SEMS placement was not efficacious for prolonging the TRBO in MDBO. Moreover, administering UDCA beyond a month might increase the risk of stent sludge occlusion. (Clinical trial registration number: UMIN000046862.).

Utility of bilateral intraductal plastic stent for malignant hilar biliary obstruction compared with bilateral self-expandable metal stent: a propensity score-matched cohort analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Intraductal plastic stent (IS) placement for unresectable malignant hilar biliary obstruction (UMHBO) is an effective option for biliary drainage. However, the effectiveness of bilateral IS placement compared with bilateral self-expandable metal stent (SEMS) placement remains unclear. METHODS: Overall, 301 patients with UMHBO were enrolled; 38 patients underwent bilateral IS placement (IS group) and 38 patients underwent SEMS placement (SEMS group) in the propensity score-based cohort. Both groups were compared for technical and clinical success, adverse events (AEs), recurrent biliary obstruction (RBO), time to RBO (TRBO), overall survival (OS), and endoscopic reintervention (ERI). RESULTS: No significant differences were observed between the groups regarding technical and clinical success, AEs and RBO occurrence rates, TRBO, or OS. The median initial endoscopic procedure time was significantly shorter in the IS group (23 vs 49 minutes, P < .01). ERI was performed on 20 and 19 patients in the IS and SEMS groups, respectively. The median ERI procedure time was significantly shorter in the IS group (22 vs 35 minutes, P = .04). Median TRBO after ERI with plastic stent placement tended to be longer in the IS group (306 vs 56 days, P = .068). A Cox multivariate analysis showed that the IS group was the significant related factor for TRBO after ERI (hazard ratio, .31; 95% confidence interval, .25-.82; P = .035). CONCLUSIONS: Bilateral IS placement can reduce the duration of the endoscopic procedure and provide sufficient stent patency both initially and after ERI stent placement, and the stents are removable. Bilateral IS placement is considered a good option for initial UMHBO drainage. (Clinical trial registration number: UMIN000050546.).

The evaluation of bilateral stenting using braided or laser-cut self-expandable metallic stent for malignant hilar biliary obstruction.

OBJECTIVES: Bilateral self-expandable metallic stent (SEMS) placement for unresectable malignant hilar biliary obstruction (UMHBO) is an effective option for biliary drainage with long-term stent patency. Laser-cut and braided SEMS can be used for bilateral SEMS placement. This study aimed to clarify any differences in the clinical features and proper use of the laser-cut and braided SEMS placement using the stent-in-stent method for UMHBO. METHODS: In this study, 78 patients who underwent bilateral stent-in-stent SEMS placement for UMHBO were included. The patients were divided into the laser-cut (n = 33) and braided groups (n = 45). Both groups were compared for technical and clinical success, adverse events (AEs), time to recurrent biliary obstruction (TRBO), overall survival, and endoscopic reintervention (ERI). RESULTS: There were no significant differences in technical and clinical success rates (laser-cut vs. braided group, 97% vs. 95.6%, P = 1.0), AEs (21.2% vs. 15.6%. P = 0.56), median TRBO (242 days vs. 140 days, P = 0.36), and median overall survival (654 days vs. 675 days, P = 0.58). ERI was required in 15 patients in the laser-cut group and in 20 patients in the braided group. The technical and clinical success rates of ERI (60% vs. 85%) were not significantly different (P = 0.13); however, the median ERI procedure time was significantly longer in the laser-cut group (38 min) than in the braided group (22 min; P = 0.02). CONCLUSION: No significant difference in initial SEMS placement was noted between the laser-cut and braided groups; however, the laser-cut group required a longer ERI procedure time than that required by the braided group. The use of braided SEMS may be a convenient option for ERI.

Time to think prime times for treatment of necrotizing pancreatitis: Pendulum conundrum.

Pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs) typically develop as local complications of acute pancreatitis and complicate the clinical course of patients with acute pancreatitis and potentially fatal clinical outcomes. Interventions are required in cases of symptomatic walled-off necrosis (WON) (matured PFCs with necrosis) and pancreatic pseudocysts (matured PFCs without necrosis). In the management of necrotizing pancreatitis and WON, endoscopic ultrasound-guided transluminal drainage combined with on-demand endoscopic necrosectomy (i.e. the step-up approach) is increasingly used as a less invasive treatment modality compared with a surgical or percutaneous approach. Through the substantial research efforts and development of specific devices and stents (e.g. lumen-apposing metal stents), endoscopic techniques of PFC management have been standardized to some extent. However, there has been no consensus about timing of carrying out each treatment step; for instance, it is uncertain when direct endoscopic necrosectomy should be initiated and finished and when a plastic or metal stent should be removed following clinical treatment success. Despite emerging evidence for the effectiveness of noninterventional supportive treatment (e.g. antibiotics, nutritional support, irrigation of the cavity), there has been only limited data on the timing of starting and stopping the treatment. Large studies are required to optimize the timing of those treatment options and improve clinical outcomes of patients with PFCs. In this review, we summarize the current available evidence on the indications and timing of interventional and supportive treatment modalities for this patient population and discussed clinical unmet needs that should be addressed in future research.

Risk factors for adverse outcomes at various phases of endoscopic ultrasound-guided treatment of pancreatic fluid collections: Data from a multi-institutional consortium.

OBJECTIVES: No comprehensive study has examined short- and long-term adverse outcomes of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided treatment of pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs) including walled-off necrosis (WON) and pseudocysts. METHODS: In a multi-institutional cohort of 357 patients receiving EUS-guided treatment of PFCs (228 with WON and 129 with pseudocysts), we examined PFC type-specific risk factors for procedure-related adverse events (AEs), clinical failure, and recurrence. Odds ratios (ORs) and hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were computed using the logistic and Cox regression models, respectively, adjusting for potential confounders. RESULTS: Adverse events were observed predominantly in WON, and risk factors were WON extension to the pelvis (OR 2.49; 95% CI 1.00-6.19) and endoscopic necrosectomy (OR 5.15; 95% CI 1.61-16.5). Risk factors for clinical failure in WON treatment included higher Charlson Comorbidity Index (OR for ≥3 vs. ≤2, 2.58; 95% CI 1.05-6.35), extension to the pelvis (OR 3.63; 95% CI 1.57-8.43), nonuse of a lumen-apposing metal stent (OR 2.88; 95% CI 1.10-7.54), and percutaneous drainage (OR 3.73; 95% CI 1.27-10.9). Patients with pseudocysts extending to the paracolic gutter and the need for more than two endoscopic/percutaneous procedures had ORs for clinical failure of 5.28 (95% CI 1.10-25.3) and 5.52 (95% CI 1.61-18.9), respectively. Pseudocysts requiring the multigateway approach were associated with a high risk of recurrence (HR 4.00; 95% CI 1.11-11.6). CONCLUSION: The adverse outcomes at various phases of EUS-guided PFC treatment may be predictable based on clinical parameters. Further research is warranted to optimize treatment strategies for high-risk patients.

The efficacy and safety of modified FOLFIRINOX for unresectable advanced pancreatic cancer in elderly versus young patients: A multicenter retrospective cohort study.

In the treatment of advanced pancreatic cancer (APC), FOLFIRINOX (FX), including its dose-modified regimen (mFX), is considered an effective regimen; however, FX is also known to be associated with a high incidence of adverse events due to its multi-agent combination regimen. The efficacy and safety in elderly patients with APC have not been well studied. AIM: To compare the safety and efficacy of first-line mFX for unresectable APC in elderly and young patients. METHODS: This was a multicenter retrospective cohort study included patients who received first-line mFX for unresectable APC. A total of 151 patients were included and divided into the elderly (≥65 years old; 76 patients) and young (<65 years old; 75 patients) groups. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). The secondary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) and adverse events (AEs). RESULTS: The median OS and PFS were similar between the two groups (OS: 14.4 months versus 13.9 months, p = 0.42; PFS: 7.4 months versus 6.6 months, p = 0.65). Although severe AEs (≥ grade 3) were observed frequently in both groups (80% versus 84.2%, p = 0.53), there was no significant difference in any of the events between the groups. In the multivariate analysis evaluating the factors affecting OS and febrile neutropenia, age was not significant factors in both analyses. CONCLUSION: First-line mFX for APC in elderly patients was as safe and effective as in younger patients if performance status was good. Further evaluation in a larger cohort is required to confirm our findings.

Covered self-expandable metallic stent versus plastic stent for preoperative endoscopic biliary drainage in patients with pancreatic cancer: a multi-center retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Expanding indications for neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) for resectable pancreatic cancer prolong the period from diagnosis to surgery. In resectable pancreatic cancer with malignant biliary obstruction (MBO), the biliary drainage method without any biliary events is ideally required to safely perform NAC as planned. Plastic stents (PS) have been traditionally used for preoperative biliary drainage; however, recently, covered self-expandable metallic stents (CSEMS) have emerged as a tool for preoperative biliary drainage. AIMS: To compare CSEMS with PS for preoperative biliary drainage in the management of resectable pancreatic cancer with MBO. METHODS: In this multicenter retrospective cohort study, we compared CSEMS with PS for preoperative biliary drainage in patients with pancreatic cancer at three tertiary care centers between 2008 and 2019. RESULTS: Of the 120 enrolled patients, 45 underwent CSEMS and 75 underwent PS. No significant difference was observed in the basic characteristics between the groups. The rate of recurrent biliary obstruction (RBO) was significantly lower and the time to RBO was significantly longer in the CSEMS group. In multivariate analysis, CSEMS was an independent factor for a longer RBO. However, pancreatitis and cholecystitis were more common in the CSEMS group. The surgery-related adverse events were not significantly different between the two groups, except for longer surgery time and time to discharge in the CSEMS group. CONCLUSIONS: CSEMS for preoperative endoscopic biliary drainage in patients with pancreatic cancer reduced RBO, although the risk for pancreatitis or cholecystitis could be increased.

Evaluation of preoperative diagnostic methods for resectable pancreatic cancer: a diagnostic capability and impact on the prognosis of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration.

BACKGROUND: A pathological diagnosis of pancreatic cancer should be performed as much as possible to determine the appropriate treatment strategy, but priorities and algorithms for diagnostic methods have not yet been established. In recent years, the endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) has become the primary method of collecting tissues from pancreatic disease, but the effect of EUS-FNA on surgical results and prognosis has not been clarified. AIMS: To evaluate the diagnostic ability of EUS-FNA and its effect on the preoperative diagnosis, surgical outcome, and prognosis of pancreatic cancer. METHODS: Between January 2005 and June 2017, 293 patients who underwent surgical resection for pancreatic cancer were retrospectively evaluated. The outcomes of interest were the diagnostic ability of EUS-FNA and its influence on the surgical results and prognosis. RESULTS: The diagnostic sensitivity of EUS-FNA was 94.4%, which was significantly higher than that of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) (45.5%) (p < 0.001). The adverse event rate in ERCP was 10.2%, which was significantly higher than EUS-FNA (1.3%) (p = 0.001). Patients were divided into FNA group (N = 160) and non-FNA group (N = 133) for each preoperative diagnostic method. In the study of surgical curability R0 between the two groups, there was no significant difference in FNA group (65.0% [104/160]) and non-FNA group (64.7% [86/133], p = 1.000). In the prognostic study, 256 patients with curative R0 or R1 had a recurrence rate was 54.3% (70/129) in the FNA group and 57.4% (73/127) in the non-FNA group. Moreover peritoneal dissemination occurred in 34.3% (24/70) in the FNA group and in 21.9% (16/73) in the non-FNA group, neither of which showed a significant difference. The median survival times of the FNA and non-FNA groups were 955 days and 799 days, respectively, and there was no significant difference between the two groups (log-rank p = 0.735). In the Cox proportional hazards model, factors influencing prognosis, staging, curability, and adjuvant chemotherapy were the dominant factors, but the preoperative diagnostic method (EUS-FNA) itself was not. CONCLUSIONS: EUS-FNA is a safe procedure with a high diagnostic ability for the preoperative examination of pancreatic cancer. It was considered the first choice without the influence of surgical curability, postoperative recurrence, peritoneal dissemination and prognosis.

[A case of polysplenia syndrome with annular pancreas and agenesis of the dorsal pancreas].

A 69-year-old woman had a history of acute pancreatitis. On abdominal computed tomography, the pancreatic body and tail could not be visualized, and the pancreatic head encircled the descending part of the duodenum. On endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, we could not find the minor papilla. The major papilla was located on the lateral wall of the descending part of the duodenum. The pancreatic duct was short, and the common bile duct was on the lateral side of the duodenum near the hepatic hilum. We diagnosed polysplenia syndrome with annular pancreas and agenesis of the dorsal pancreas. The syndrome includes several congenital anomalies, but there is very little information currently available about this particular syndrome. We report our patient's case and review the pertinent literature.

Comparison of late adverse events after endoscopic sphincterotomy versus endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation for common bile duct stones: A propensity score-based cohort analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Endoscopic sphincterotomy (ES) is a standard procedure for the treatment of common bile duct stones (CBDS). Endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation (EPLBD) is emerging as an effective method to treat difficult CBDS, providing several advantages over ES without increasing early adverse events (AE). However, the late AE of EPLBD have not yet been well studied. The aim of the present study was to compare late AE after EPLBD versus ES for the treatment of CBDS using a propensity score-based cohort analysis. METHODS: Propensity score matching was introduced to reduce the possible bias in baseline characteristics between two treatment groups and formed the matched cohort including 240 patients. Primary endpoint was cumulative as well as estimated 1-year and 3-year late AE rates. Secondary outcome was the incidence of early AE. RESULTS: Cumulative late AE rates were 12.5% and 16.7% in the ELPBD and ES groups (P = 0.936) with a median follow-up period of 915.5 and 1544.5 days, respectively. Estimated 1-year and 3-year late AE rates were 8.4% and 13.1% in the EPLBD group and 5.0% and 15.0% in the ES group, respectively. In multivariate analysis, ≥two procedures were identified as independent risk factors for late AE. Overall early AE rate did not differ between the groups. CONCLUSION: In the present study, late AE rate after EPLBD showed no significant difference compared with that after ES, which had a relatively long follow-up period. Therefore, EPLBD could be used for the treatment of CBDS, if CBDS are considered difficult to treat. Clinical Trial Registry: UMIN000027798.

Preventive Effects of Pentoxifylline on the Development of Colonic Premalignant Lesions in Obese and Diabetic Mice.

Obesity and its related metabolic abnormalities, including enhanced oxidative stress and chronic inflammation, are closely related to colorectal tumorigenesis. Pentoxifylline (PTX), a methylxanthine derivative, has been reported to suppress the production of tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α and possess anti-inflammatory properties. The present study investigated the effects of PTX on the development of carcinogen-induced colorectal premalignant lesions in obese and diabetic mice. Male C57BL/KsJ-db/db mice, which are severely obese and diabetic, were administered weekly subcutaneous injections of the colonic carcinogen azoxymethane (15 mg/kg body weight) for four weeks and then received drinking water containing 125 or 500 ppm PTX for eight weeks. At the time of sacrifice, PTX administration markedly suppressed the development of premalignant lesions in the colorectum. The levels of oxidative stress markers were significantly decreased in the PTX-treated group compared with those in the untreated control group. In PTX-administered mice, the mRNA expression levels of cyclooxygenase (COX)-2, interleukin (IL)-6, and TNF-α, and the number of proliferating cell nuclear antigen (PCNA)-positive cells in the colonic mucosa, were significantly reduced. These observations suggest that PTX attenuated chronic inflammation and oxidative stress, and prevented the development of colonic tumorigenesis in an obesity-related colon cancer model.

Significance of Endoscopic Sphincterotomy Preceding Endoscopic Papillary Large Balloon Dilation in the Management of Bile Duct Stones.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation (EPLBD) is safe and effective in management of common bile duct stones (CBDS). Endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) prior to EPLBD has been performed as a standard procedure. However, the significance of EST prior to EPLBD has not been well studied yet. AIMS: To compare the clinical outcomes of EPLBD with and without EST to evaluate the significance of EST. METHODS: Between April 2010 and March 2015, a total of 82 patients with naïve papillae underwent EPLBD with or without EST for the management of CBDS. A retrospective analysis compared the efficacy and safety of EPLBD with and without EST. RESULTS: Basic patient characteristics were not significantly different between the groups that underwent EPLBD with EST (n = 27) and without EST (n = 55). Complete stone removal rates were similar between the groups (100 % in the EST group and 98 % in the non-EST group, p = 1.00). There was no significant difference in the median balloon size (13 mm in both groups, p = 0.445), rate of application of mechanical lithotripsy (26 vs. 35 % in the EST and non-EST groups, respectively, p = 0.463), or the median procedure time (38 vs. 34 min in the EST and non-EST groups, respectively, p = 0.682). The overall adverse event rates were not statistically different (4 vs. 7 % in the EST and non-EST groups, respectively, p = 1.00). Pancreatitis, cholangitis, and hemorrhage rates were also similar in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: EST prior to EPLBD may be unnecessary since this study did not demonstrate its benefits.

Peroral Pancreatoscopy-Guided Lithotripsy Compared with Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy in the Management of Pancreatic Duct Stones in Chronic Pancreatitis: A Multicenter Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) is a common treatment for pancreatic stones in chronic pancreatitis. In contrast, peroral pancreatoscopy-guided lithotripsy (POPS-L) remains underexplored, with limited comparative studies to ESWL. This study compared the treatment outcomes of disposable POPS-L tools and ESWL for pancreatic stones. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was conducted on 66 patients who had undergone pancreatic stone treatment at three institutions between 2006 and 2022. The treatment outcomes of POPS-L and ESWL were compared. RESULTS: This study included 19 and 47 patients who had undergone POPS-L and ESWL, respectively. In a comparison between POPS-L and ESWL, the stone clearance rates were 78.9% vs. 70.2% (p = 0.55), while the procedure-related complication rates were 21% vs. 6.3% (p = 0.09). The median total session counts were 1 vs. 5 (p < 0.01). The cumulative stone recurrence rates were comparable in both groups. Multivariate analysis revealed no significant factors influencing the stone clearance rates, and the choice between POPS-L and ESWL did not affect the stone clearance rates. CONCLUSIONS: POPS-L and ESWL exhibited comparable treatment outcomes in terms of stone clearance, complications, and recurrence rates. Furthermore, POPS-L is advantageous due to the need for fewer sessions to achieve pancreatic stone clearance.

One-stage versus two-stage endoscopic management for acute cholangitis caused by common bile duct stones: A retrospective multicenter cohort study.

BACKGROUND: One-stage endoscopic management, where papillary interventions and stone removal are simultaneously performed, has been reported to be an effective treatment for acute cholangitis caused by common bile duct stones (CBDS). However, there have been few reports comparing it with two-stage management, and there is no established strategy for the indication of one-stage management. The aim of the present study was to compare the short- and long-term outcomes between one- and two-stage management for acute cholangitis caused by CBDS. METHODS: We retrospectively studied 577 patients who underwent one- or two-stage endoscopic management for acute cholangitis between May 2010 and December 2020. The patients were divided into one- and two-stage groups by endoscopic management. The clinical outcomes were compared between groups. RESULTS: The technical and clinical success were similar in both groups, although the length of hospital stay was significantly shorter in the one-stage group. Although there was no difference in the early adverse event (AE) between two groups, post-ERCP pancreatitis was recognized in 3.4% and 10.0%, which was significantly higher in the two-stage group. The cumulative late AE rate was 22.6% and 14.1%, which was significantly higher in the one-stage group. In the multivariate analyses, intervention (one-stage), number of CBDS ≥2, biliary drainage, the use of ML, and gallbladder stone were identified as significant factors associated with the recurrence of CBDS. CONCLUSION: Although one-stage endoscopic management is useful and safe with reducing hospital stays, diligent postoperative follow-up with consideration to recurrence of CBDS is essential.

Risk of recurrence with or without plastic stent after EUS-guided treatment of peripancreatic fluid collections: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background and study aims Recent advances in endoscopic transmural treatment have improved the clinical outcomes of patients with pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs). However, there is still a debate about the preventive effect of long-term placement of a transmural plastic stent (PS) on recurrence after successful endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided treatment of PFCs. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate PFC recurrence rates with and without a transmural PS after EUS-guided treatment. Patients and methods A systematic literature search of PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane database was conducted to identify clinical studies comparing outcomes with and without transmural PS published until September 2022. Data on PFC recurrence and adverse events (AEs) were pooled using a random-effects model. Results Nine studies including 380 patients with long-term transmural PS and 289 patients without PS were identified. The rate of PFC recurrence was significantly lower in patients with transmural PS (pooled odds ratio [OR] = 0.23, 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.08-0.65], P = 0.005). In a subgroup analysis limited to studies focusing on patients with disconnected pancreatic duct syndrome, which has been reported to be a risk factor for PFC recurrence, the OR was numerically lower than that for the entire cohort (OR = 0.14, 95% CI [0.04-0.46]). The rate of AEs was significantly higher with long-term transmural PS (OR = 14.77, 95% CI [4.21-51.83]). Conclusions In this meta-analysis, long-term PS placement reduced the risk of PFC recurrence. Given the potential AEs of indwelling PS, further research is required to evaluate the overall benefits of long-term PS placement.

Endoscopic internalization by cutting versus removal of the endoscopic transpapillary naso-gallbladder drainage tube in preoperative management of acute cholecystitis: A retrospective multicenter cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic transpapillary naso-gallbladder drainage (ENGBD) has been reported to be an effective treatment option for acute cholecystitis. At our institution, ENGBD was first placed for external fistula management, and endoscopic internalization by cutting was performed, shifting to endoscopic transpapillary gallbladder stenting (EGBS) after improvement of cholecystitis. However, there has been no comparative study to define which preoperative management is better: converting ENGBD to EGBS or removing ENGBD. The study aimed to compare the incidence rate of the late adverse events (AEs) related to biliary system between shifting from ENGBD to EGBS and removal of ENGBD. METHODS: We retrospectively studied 122 patients who underwent ENGBD for acute cholecystitis between January 2010 and October 2022. The patients were divided into two groups: the cutting group (converting ENGBD to EGBS) and the removal group (removal of ENGBD). The short and late clinical outcomes were compared between groups. RESULTS: Endoscopic transpapillary naso-gallbladder drainage was successfully placed in 78.6% (96/122), and elective cholecystectomy was performed in 31 and 36 patients in the cutting and removal groups, respectively. The cumulative late-AE rates were 6.4% and 33.3% (p = .007), with a median waiting period for elective cholecystectomy of 58 and 33 days (p = .390) in the cutting and removal groups, respectively. In the multivariate analysis, only endoscopic internalization by cutting was an independent factor affecting late AEs. CONCLUSION: Endoscopic internalization by cutting ENGBD after the resolution of acute cholecystitis was considered effective in reducing the risk of late AEs during the waiting period for an elective cholecystectomy.

Endoscopic Transpapillary Gallbladder Drainage for Recurrent Cholecystitis after Covered Self-expandable Metal Stent Placement for Unresectable Malignant Biliary Obstruction.

A 76-year-old woman with advanced pancreatic cancer developed recurrent cholecystitis after covered self-expandable metal stent (CSEMS) placement. The cholecystitis was refractory to repeated percutaneous transhepatic gallbladder drainage (PTGBD). Cholecystography showed a patent cystic duct with right and cranial side bifurcation, which is indicative of an increased likelihood of success of endoscopic transpapillary gallbladder drainage (ETGBD). We were able to manage the cholecystitis by ETGBD without further recurrence. ETGBD is considered an effective internal drainage method for the management of acute cholecystitis after CSEMS placement, and its indication may be decided on the basis of the findings of cholecystography through the PTGBD route.

Comparison of unilateral and bilateral intraductal plastic stent placement for unresectable malignant hilar biliary obstruction: A propensity score-matched cohort analysis.

BACKGROUND: Although intraductal plastic stent (IS) placement is an effective treatment for unresectable malignant hilar biliary obstruction (UMHBO), the effectiveness of unilateral and bilateral IS drainage remains controversial. This retrospective study investigated the effectiveness of bilateral IS placement for UMHBO using the propensity score matching method. METHODS: Patients who underwent transpapillary endoscopic stenting for UMHBO were analyzed for technical and clinical success, adverse events, and time to recurrent biliary obstruction (TRBO). RESULTS: A total of 321 patients were enrolled in the study with 27 patients in each unilateral and bilateral IS group in the propensity score-based cohort. Technical success was 100%, while clinical success was 93% and 96% in the unilateral and bilateral IS groups, respectively (p = 1.0). Cholecystitis occurred in 4% and 7%, respectively (p = 1.0). The median TRBO was shorter in the unilateral group (129 [5-383] days) than that in the bilateral group (226 [16-563] days) (p = .0281). Bilateral IS placement was an independent long TRBO factor (hazard ratio [HR] 0.46; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.21-0.97; p = .041). CONCLUSIONS: Unilateral and bilateral IS placement had high technical and clinical success rates in primary stent placement. However, bilateral IS placement showed a longer TRBO. Bilateral IS placement may be a good option for initial UMHBO drainage.