How to perform EUS-guided biliary drainage.

EUS-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) has recently gained widespread acceptance as a minimally invasive alternative method for biliary drainage. Even in experienced endoscopy centers, ERCP may fail due to inaccessibility of the papillary region, altered anatomy (particularly postsurgical alterations), papillary obstruction, or neoplastic gastric outlet obstruction. Biliary cannulation fails at first attempt in 5%-10% of cases even in the absence of these factors. In such cases, alternative options for biliary drainage must be provided since biliary obstruction is responsible for poor quality of life and even reduced survival, particularly due to septic cholangitis. The standard of care in many centers remains percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD). However, despite the high technical success rate with experienced operators, the percutaneous approach is more invasive and associated with poor quality of life. PTBD may result in long-term external catheters for biliary drainage and carry the risk of serious adverse events (SAEs) in up to 10% of patients, including bile leaks, hemorrhage, and sepsis. PTBD following a failed ERCP also requires scheduling a second procedure, resulting in prolonged hospital stay and additional costs. EUS-BD may overcome many of these limitations and offer some distinct advantages in accessing the biliary tree. Current data suggest that EUS-BD is safe and effective when performed by experts, although SAEs have been also reported. Despite the high number of clinical reports and case series, high-quality comparative studies are still lacking. The purpose of this article is to report on the current status of this procedure and to discuss the tools and techniques for EUS-BD in different clinical scenarios.

Comparison of EUS-guided choledochoduodenostomy and percutaneous drainage for distal biliary obstruction: A multicenter cohort study.

Background and Objectives: Percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) and EUS-guided choledochoduodenostomy (EUS-CD) are alternate therapies to endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography with stent placement for biliary decompression. The primary outcome of this study is to compare the technical and clinical success of PTBD to EUS-CD in patients with distal biliary obstruction. Secondary outcomes were adverse events (AEs), need for reintervention, and survival. Methods: A multicenter retrospective cohort study from three different centers was performed. Cox regression was used to compare time to reintervention and survival and logistic regression to compare technical and clinical success and AE rates. Subgroup analysis was performed in patients with malignant biliary obstruction (MBO). Results: A total of 86 patients (58 PTBD and 28 EUS-CD) were included. The two groups were similar with respect to age, gender, and cause of biliary obstruction, with malignancy being the most common etiology (80.2%). EUS-CD utilized lumen-apposing metal stents in 15 patients and self-expandable metal biliary stents in 13 patients. Technical success was similar been EUS-CD (100%) and PTBD (96.6%; P = 0.3). EUS-CD was associated with higher clinical success compared to PTBD (84.6% vs. 62.1%; P = 0.04). There was a trend toward lower rates of AEs with EUS-CD 14.3% versus PTBD 29.3%, odds ratio: 0.40 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.12-1.33, P = 0.14). The need for reintervention was significantly lower among patients who underwent EUS-CD (10.7%) compared to PTBD (77.6%) (hazard ratio: 0.07, 95% CI: 0.02-0.24; P < 0.001). A sensitivity analysis of only patients with MBO demonstrated similar rate of reintervention between the groups in individuals who survived 50 days or less after the biliary decompression. However, reintervention rates were lower for EUS-CD in those with longer survival. Conclusion: EUS-CD is a technically and clinically highly successful procedure with a trend toward lower AEs compared to PTBD. EUS-CD minimizes the need for reintervention, which may enhance end-of-life quality in patients with MBO and expected survival longer than 50 days.

What should be known prior to performing EUS exams? (Part II).

In "What should be known prior to performing EUS exams, Part I," the authors discussed the need for clinical information and whether other imaging modalities are required before embarking EUS examinations. Herewith, we present part II which addresses some (technical) controversies how EUS is performed and discuss from different points of view providing the relevant evidence as available. (1) Does equipment design influence the complication rate? (2) Should we have a standardized screen orientation? (3) Radial EUS versus longitudinal (linear) EUS. (4) Should we search for incidental findings using EUS?

A multi-institution consensus on how to perform EUS-guided biliary drainage for malignant biliary obstruction.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: EUS-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) was shown to be useful for malignant biliary obstruction (MBO). However, there is lack of consensus on how EUS-BD should be performed. METHODS: This was a worldwide multi-institutional survey among members of the International Society of EUS conducted in February 2018. The survey consisted of 10 questions related to the practice of EUS-BD. RESULTS: Forty-six endoscopists of them completed the survey. The majority of endoscopists felt that EUS-BD could replace percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage after failure of ERCP. Among all EUS-BD methods, the rendezvous stenting technique should be the first choice. Self-expandable metal stents (SEMSs) were recommended by most endoscopists. For EUS-guided hepaticogastrostomy (HGS), superiority of partially-covered SEMS over fully-covered SEMS was not in agreement. 6-Fr cystotomes were recommended for fistula creation. During the HGS approach, longer SEMS (8 or 10 cm) was recommended. During the choledochoduodenostomy approach, 6-cm SEMS was recommended. During the intrahepatic (IH) approach, the IH segment 3 was recommended. CONCLUSION: This is the first worldwide survey on the practice of EUS-BD for MBO. There were wide variations in practice, and randomized studies are urgently needed to establish the best approach for the management of this condition.

Technical review of endoscopic ultrasonography-guided gastroenterostomy in 2017.

Gastric outlet obstruction (GOO) can be caused by benign and malignant diseases and often leads to a reduction in patient quality of life. Lately, endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS)-guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE) has emerged. At the present time, there are three types of EUS-GE using lumen-apposing biflanged metal stents (LAMS): (i) direct EUS-GE; (ii) assisted EUS-GE using retrieval/dilating balloon, single balloon overtube, nasobiliary drain and ultraslim endoscope; and (iii) EUS-guided double-balloon-occluded gastrojejunostomy bypass (EPASS). Overall technical success rate is approximately 90% regardless of technique used, although this is based on two retrospective studies only. In the EPASS procedure, the success rate of the one-step procedure was higher than that of the two-step procedure (100% vs 82%). Clinical success was almost uniform when stent placement was technically successful. Although there have been no-stent induced procedural deaths, adverse events were seen in several cases. One technically failed case carried out using balloon-assisted EUS-GE was converted to laparoscopic gastrojejunostomy. Two failed cases in EPASS procedure improved with conservative treatment. In the present review, we show the feasibility and outcomes using novel EUS-GE using LAMS. Clinical prospective trials with comparison to luminal enteral stents and surgical GE are warranted.

Randomized double-blinded prospective trial of fibrin sealant spray versus mechanical stapling in laparoscopic total extraperitoneal hernioplasty.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the current study was to compare the clinical outcomes of mesh fixation with fibrin sealant (FS) spray or mechanical stapling (MS) in laparoscopic total extraperitoneal hernioplasty (TEP). BACKGROUND: The most appropriate method of mesh fixation is uncertain. METHODS: Between June 2007 and June 2011, consecutive patients with primary reducible unilateral inguinal hernia who underwent day-case laparoscopic TEP were recruited. Outcome parameters included the incidence of acute and chronic pain, recurrence rates, morbidity rates, analgesic requirements, quality-of-life (QOL) scores, and direct cost. RESULTS: During the study period, 130 patients were included in the study. Patients in the MS group had significantly worse pain scores on the day after operation (P = 0.006). Analgesic requirements were similar between the 2 groups (P = 0.558). At 6 months, no significant differences in the incidence of chronic pain were observed (at rest, after coughing or cycling). The incidence of seroma formation was similar between the 2 groups (P = 0.64), and no recurrences were observed at 1 year. No differences in the QOL scores were detected. The direct cost of the entire hospitalization in the FS group was less expensive (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: FS and MS are both effective methods of providing mesh fixation. FS was associated with reduced acute pain but not chronic pain. The rates of seroma formation were similar. However, the use of FS for mesh fixation was less expensive. [corrected].