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.

Controversies in ERCP: Technical aspects.

The aim of the series of papers on controversies of biliopancreatic drainage procedures is to discuss pros and cons of the varying clinical practices and techniques in ERCP and EUS for drainage of biliary and pancreatic ducts. While the first part focuses on indications, clinical and imaging prerequisites prior to ERCP, sedation options, post-ERCP pancreatitis prophylaxis, and other related technical topics, the second part discusses specific procedural ERCP techniques including precut techniques and their timing as well as management algorithms. In addition, reviews on controversies in EUS-guided bile duct and pancreatic drainage procedures are under preparation.

Controversies in ERCP: Indications and preparation.

The aim of the series of papers on controversies of biliopancreatic drainage procedures is to discuss the pros and cons of the varying clinical practices and techniques in ERCP and EUS for drainage of biliary and pancreatic ducts. The first part focuses on indications, clinical and imaging prerequisites before ERCP, sedation options, post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) prophylaxis, and other related technical topics. In the second part, specific procedural ERCP-techniques including precut techniques and its timing as well as management algorithms are discussed. In addition, controversies in EUS-guided bile duct and pancreatic drainage procedures are under preparation.

How to perform EUS-guided tattooing?

Recently, we introduced a series of papers describing on how to perform certain techniques and controversies in EUS. In the first paper, "What should be known before performing EUS examinations, Part I," the authors discussed clinical information and whether other imaging modalities should be needed before embarking in EUS examination. In Part II, some technical controversies on how EUS is performed are discussed from different points of view by providing the relevant available evidence. Herewith, we describe on how to perform EUS-guided fine needle tattooing (FNT) in daily practice. The aim of this paper is to discuss pros and cons for several issues including historical remarks, injecting material, technical approach, and how to perform EUS-FNT including argues in favor and against.

Hepatitis B virus-associated hepatocellular carcinoma in South Africa in the era of HIV.

BACKGROUND: Patients co-infected with hepatitis B virus (HBV) and the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) are at risk of developing hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). In sub-Saharan Africa, the overlap between high HIV and HBV prevalence may increase the incidence of HCC. This study investigated the impact of HBV/HIV co-infection on age at presentation and survival of HCC. METHODS: Ethical approval was obtained to recruit, following informed written consent, patients diagnosed with HCC at oncology units at four South African hospitals. Between December 2012 and August 2015, patients newly diagnosed with HCC were recruited and provided demographic and clinical data and blood specimens. Patients were tested for HBV, hepatitis C virus (HCV) and HIV. Survival data was available for a subset of patients. RESULTS: Of 107 HCC cases, 83 (78%) were male. Median age was 46 years (range 18 to 90 years), 68/106 (64%) were HBsAg-positive, and 22/100 (22%) were HIV infected. Among HBV surface antigen (HBsAg)-positive HCC cases, 18/66 (27%) were HIV-infected compared to 3/34 (9%) among those that were HBsAg-negative (p = 0.04). A greater proportion of HBV/HIV co-infected cases were female than HBV mono-infected (6/18, 33% vs 6/47, 13%; p = 0.005). In addition, HBV/HIV co-infected females presented at a younger mean age (36.8 years) than HBV mono-infected women (50.5 years) (p = 0.09). Median survival was 82 days among the HIV-infected HCC patients compared to 181 days among those without HIV (p = 0.15). CONCLUSIONS: HCC is an important complication in the HIV/HBV infected patient. HIV-positive patients presented with HCC at a younger age than HIV-negative patients, this effect appears to be greater in women. These data provide more evidence supporting the call to address. HCC as a cause of morbidity and mortality in the HBV/HIV co-infected patient population. (281 words).

Standards for reporting on surgery for chronic pancreatitis: a report from the International Study Group for Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS).

BACKGROUND: The International Study Group for Pancreatic Surgery provides globally accepted definitions for reporting of complications after pancreatic surgery. This International Study Group for Pancreatic Surgery project aims to provide a standardized framework for reporting of the results of operative treatment for chronic pancreatitis. METHODS: An International Study Group for Pancreatic Surgery project circulation list was created with pre-existing and new members and including gastroenterologists in addition to surgeons. A computerized search of the literature was undertaken for articles reporting the operative treatment of chronic pancreatitis. The results of the literature search were presented at the first face-to-face meeting of this International Study Group for Pancreatic Surgery project group. A document outlining proposed reporting standards was produced by discussion during an initial meeting of the International Study Group for Pancreatic Surgery. An electronic questionnaire was then sent to all current members of the International Study Group for Pancreatic Surgery. Responses were collated and further discussed at international meetings in North America, Europe, and at the International Association of Pancreatology World Congress in 2019. A final consensus document was produced by integration of multiple iterations. RESULTS: The International Study Group for Pancreatic Surgery consensus standards for reporting of surgery in chronic pancreatitis recommends 4 core domains and the necessary variables needed for reporting of results: clinical baseline before operation; the morphology of the diseased gland; a new, standardized, operative terminology; and a minimum outcome dataset. The 4 domains combine to give a comprehensive framework for reports. CONCLUSION: Adoption of the 4 domains of the International Study Group for Pancreatic Surgery reporting standards for surgery for chronic pancreatitis will facilitate comparison of results between centers and help to improve the care for patients with this debilitating disease.

Mind the gap! Extraluminal percutaneous-endoscopic rendezvous with a self-expanding metal stent for restoring continuity in major bile duct injury: A case series.

INTRODUCTION: Treatment of major iatrogenic and non-iatrogenic bile duct injury (BDI) often requires delayed surgery with interim external biliary drainage. Percutaneous transhepatic cholangiography (PTC) with biliary catheter placement and endoscopic retrograde cholangiography (ERC) with stent placement have been used to bridge defects. In some patients, bridging the defect cannot be achieved through ERC or PTC alone. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two patients with major BDIs, one iatrogenic and one non-iatrogenic underwent an extraluminal PTC/ERC rendezvous with placement of a fully covered self-expandable metal stent (SEMS) for the acute management of BDI with substantial loss of bile duct length. RESULTS: In both patients the intraperitoneal PTC/ERC rendezvous with SEMS placement was successful with no complications after 12 and 18 months follow-up, respectively. DISCUSSION: This study is the first to report a standardized approach to the acute management of iatrogenic and non-iatrogenic major BDIs using extraluminal intraperitoneal PTC/ERC rendezvous with placement of a fully covered SEMS. The described technique may serve as a "bridge to surgery" strategy for patients where definitive management of BDIs are deferred. However, long-term data of the success of this technique, specifically the use of a SEMS to bridge the defect, are lacking and further investigation is required to determine its role as a definitive treatment of BDIs with substance loss. CONCLUSION: PTC/ERC rendezvous with restoration of biliary continuity and internalization of bile flow is particularly useful for patients who have previously failed ERC and/or PTC alone, and in whom immediate surgical repair is not an option.

Endoscopic management of bile leaks after laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

BACKGROUND: A bile leak is an infrequent but potentially serious complication after biliary tract surgery. Endoscopic intervention is widely accepted as the treatment of choice. This study assessed the effectiveness of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), sphincterotomy and biliary stenting in the management of postoperative bile leaks. METHODS: An ERCP database in a tertiary referral centre was reviewed retrospectively to identify all patients with bile leaks after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Patient records and endoscopy reports were reviewed. RESULTS: One hundred and thirteen patients (92 women, 21 men; median age 47 years, range 22 - 82 years) with a bile leak were referred for initial endoscopic management at a median of 12 days (range 2 - 104 days) after surgery. Presenting features included intra-abdominal collections with pain in 58 cases (51.3%), abnormal liver function tests (LFTs) in 22 (19.5%), bile leak in 25 (22.1%), and sepsis in 8 (7.1%). Twenty-nine patients (25.7%) were found to have either major bile duct injuries without duct continuity, vascular injuries or other endoscopic findings requiring surgical or radiological intervention. Of 84 patients managed endoscopically, 44 had a cystic duct (CD) leak, 26 a CD leak and common bile duct (CBD) stones, and 14 a CBD injury amenable to endoscopic stenting. Of the 70 patients with CD leaks (group A), 24 underwent sphincterotomy only (including 8 stone extractions), 43 had a sphincterotomy with stent placement (including 18 stone extractions) and 1 had only a stent placed, while 2 patients with previous sphincterotomies required no further intervention. The average number of ERCPs in group A was 2.3 (range 1 - 7). Of the 14 patients with bile duct injuries treated endoscopically (group B), 7 had a class D, 5 an E5 and 2 a class B injury; 13 patients underwent sphincterotomy and stenting, and 1 had a sphincterotomy only. Group B required an average of 3.6 ERCPs (range 2 - 5). The 113 patients underwent a total of 269 ERCPs (mean 2.4, range 1 - 7). Seven patients had one or more complications related to the ERCP: 3 acute pancreatitis, 2 cholangitis, 2 sphincterotomy bleeds, 1 duodenal perforation and 1 impacted Dormia basket, the latter 2 requiring operative intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Three-quarters of bile leaks after laparoscopic cholecystectomy were due to CD leaks (with or without retained stones) or lesser bile duct injuries and were amenable to definitive endoscopic therapy. Nineteen patients (16.8%) had major injuries that required operative intervention.

Endoscopic treatment of persistent thoracobiliary fistulae after penetrating liver trauma.

BACKGROUND: This study evaluated the outcomes of patients with complex or persistent thoracobiliary fistulae following penetrating liver trauma, who underwent endoscopic biliary intervention at a tertiary referral centre. METHODS: All patients who underwent endoscopic retrograde cholangiography (ERC) and endoscopic biliary intervention for traumatic thoracobiliary fistulae between 1992 and 2008 were evaluated. Bile duct injuries were classified according to their biliary anatomic location on cholangiography and type of pulmonary communication. RESULTS: Twenty-two patients had thoracobiliary (pleurobiliary, n = 19; bronchobiliary, n = 3) fistulae. The site of the bile duct injury was identified in 20 patients on cholangiography. These 20 patients underwent either sphincterotomy and biliary stenting (n = 18) or sphincterotomy alone (n = 2). In 17 patients the fistulae resolved after the initial endoscopic intervention. Three patients required secondary stenting with replacement of the initial stent. Three patients developed mild pancreatitis after stenting and one stent migrated and was replaced. All fistulae healed after endoscopic treatment. In 18 patients the stents were removed 4 weeks after bile drainage ceased. Three of the 22 patients required a thoracotomy for infected loculated pleural collections after initial catheter drainage. CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopic retrograde cholangiography is an accurate and reliable method of demonstrating post-traumatic thoracobiliary fistulae and endoscopic biliary intervention with sphincterotomy and stenting in this situation is safe and effective. Surgery in patients with thoracobiliary fistulae should be reserved for fistulae which do not heal after endoscopic biliary stenting or for patients who have unresolved pulmonary or intra-abdominal sepsis as a result of bile leak.