Cargando…
A retrospective multicenter study comparing the punctures to B2 and B3 in endoscopic ultrasound–guided hepaticogastrostomy
OBJECTIVES: In recent years, endoscopic ultrasound–guided hepaticogastrostomy (EUS–HGS) has been performed as an important salvage option for failed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography for biliary drainage. However, technical issues, such as puncture site (bile duct of segment 3 [B3] or b...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
John Wiley and Sons Inc.
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9810585/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36618883 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/deo2.201 |
_version_ | 1784863339401183232 |
---|---|
author | Sekine, Masanari Hashimoto, Yusuke Shibuki, Taro Okumura, Kei Kobori, Ikuhiro Miyagaki, Aki Sasaki, Yoshihiro Takano, Yuichi Matsumoto, Keita Mashima, Hirosato |
author_facet | Sekine, Masanari Hashimoto, Yusuke Shibuki, Taro Okumura, Kei Kobori, Ikuhiro Miyagaki, Aki Sasaki, Yoshihiro Takano, Yuichi Matsumoto, Keita Mashima, Hirosato |
author_sort | Sekine, Masanari |
collection | PubMed |
description | OBJECTIVES: In recent years, endoscopic ultrasound–guided hepaticogastrostomy (EUS–HGS) has been performed as an important salvage option for failed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography for biliary drainage. However, technical issues, such as puncture site (bile duct of segment 3 [B3] or bile duct of segment 2 [B2]), dilation method, stent selection, and procedural safety, need to be resolved for the optimization of EUS–HGS. The present study was to compare the safety, difficulty, and technical and functional success between biliary access via B2 and B3 during EUS–HGS. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective investigation of 161 consecutive EUS–HGS cases across a total of 6 facilities, including those at our hospital. The patients were divided into two groups according to the successful drainage route: the puncture to B2 (P‐B2) or the puncture to B3 (P‐B3). We compared the technical and functional success rates, technical difficulty, and adverse events between the two groups. We also conducted a subgroup analysis to show the factors related to the procedure time. RESULTS: There were 92 cases in the P‐B2 group and 69 cases in the P‐B3 group. There were no significant differences in the technical success, functional success, or adverse events between the groups; however, the procedure time was significantly shorter in P‐B2 cases than in P‐B3 cases. The multivariate analysis showed that the puncture site was the only factor related to the procedure time. CONCLUSIONS: Based on these findings, P‐B2 appears useful and safe. P‐B2 is as effective as P‐B3 and was able to be performed in a shorter period of time. The B2 approach can be considered a useful option for EUS–HGS. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9810585 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | John Wiley and Sons Inc. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-98105852023-01-05 A retrospective multicenter study comparing the punctures to B2 and B3 in endoscopic ultrasound–guided hepaticogastrostomy Sekine, Masanari Hashimoto, Yusuke Shibuki, Taro Okumura, Kei Kobori, Ikuhiro Miyagaki, Aki Sasaki, Yoshihiro Takano, Yuichi Matsumoto, Keita Mashima, Hirosato DEN Open Original Articles OBJECTIVES: In recent years, endoscopic ultrasound–guided hepaticogastrostomy (EUS–HGS) has been performed as an important salvage option for failed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography for biliary drainage. However, technical issues, such as puncture site (bile duct of segment 3 [B3] or bile duct of segment 2 [B2]), dilation method, stent selection, and procedural safety, need to be resolved for the optimization of EUS–HGS. The present study was to compare the safety, difficulty, and technical and functional success between biliary access via B2 and B3 during EUS–HGS. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective investigation of 161 consecutive EUS–HGS cases across a total of 6 facilities, including those at our hospital. The patients were divided into two groups according to the successful drainage route: the puncture to B2 (P‐B2) or the puncture to B3 (P‐B3). We compared the technical and functional success rates, technical difficulty, and adverse events between the two groups. We also conducted a subgroup analysis to show the factors related to the procedure time. RESULTS: There were 92 cases in the P‐B2 group and 69 cases in the P‐B3 group. There were no significant differences in the technical success, functional success, or adverse events between the groups; however, the procedure time was significantly shorter in P‐B2 cases than in P‐B3 cases. The multivariate analysis showed that the puncture site was the only factor related to the procedure time. CONCLUSIONS: Based on these findings, P‐B2 appears useful and safe. P‐B2 is as effective as P‐B3 and was able to be performed in a shorter period of time. The B2 approach can be considered a useful option for EUS–HGS. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2023-01-03 /pmc/articles/PMC9810585/ /pubmed/36618883 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/deo2.201 Text en © 2022 The Authors. DEN Open published by John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd on behalf of Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Original Articles Sekine, Masanari Hashimoto, Yusuke Shibuki, Taro Okumura, Kei Kobori, Ikuhiro Miyagaki, Aki Sasaki, Yoshihiro Takano, Yuichi Matsumoto, Keita Mashima, Hirosato A retrospective multicenter study comparing the punctures to B2 and B3 in endoscopic ultrasound–guided hepaticogastrostomy |
title | A retrospective multicenter study comparing the punctures to B2 and B3 in endoscopic ultrasound–guided hepaticogastrostomy |
title_full | A retrospective multicenter study comparing the punctures to B2 and B3 in endoscopic ultrasound–guided hepaticogastrostomy |
title_fullStr | A retrospective multicenter study comparing the punctures to B2 and B3 in endoscopic ultrasound–guided hepaticogastrostomy |
title_full_unstemmed | A retrospective multicenter study comparing the punctures to B2 and B3 in endoscopic ultrasound–guided hepaticogastrostomy |
title_short | A retrospective multicenter study comparing the punctures to B2 and B3 in endoscopic ultrasound–guided hepaticogastrostomy |
title_sort | retrospective multicenter study comparing the punctures to b2 and b3 in endoscopic ultrasound–guided hepaticogastrostomy |
topic | Original Articles |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9810585/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36618883 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/deo2.201 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT sekinemasanari aretrospectivemulticenterstudycomparingthepuncturestob2andb3inendoscopicultrasoundguidedhepaticogastrostomy AT hashimotoyusuke aretrospectivemulticenterstudycomparingthepuncturestob2andb3inendoscopicultrasoundguidedhepaticogastrostomy AT shibukitaro aretrospectivemulticenterstudycomparingthepuncturestob2andb3inendoscopicultrasoundguidedhepaticogastrostomy AT okumurakei aretrospectivemulticenterstudycomparingthepuncturestob2andb3inendoscopicultrasoundguidedhepaticogastrostomy AT koboriikuhiro aretrospectivemulticenterstudycomparingthepuncturestob2andb3inendoscopicultrasoundguidedhepaticogastrostomy AT miyagakiaki aretrospectivemulticenterstudycomparingthepuncturestob2andb3inendoscopicultrasoundguidedhepaticogastrostomy AT sasakiyoshihiro aretrospectivemulticenterstudycomparingthepuncturestob2andb3inendoscopicultrasoundguidedhepaticogastrostomy AT takanoyuichi aretrospectivemulticenterstudycomparingthepuncturestob2andb3inendoscopicultrasoundguidedhepaticogastrostomy AT matsumotokeita aretrospectivemulticenterstudycomparingthepuncturestob2andb3inendoscopicultrasoundguidedhepaticogastrostomy AT mashimahirosato aretrospectivemulticenterstudycomparingthepuncturestob2andb3inendoscopicultrasoundguidedhepaticogastrostomy AT sekinemasanari retrospectivemulticenterstudycomparingthepuncturestob2andb3inendoscopicultrasoundguidedhepaticogastrostomy AT hashimotoyusuke retrospectivemulticenterstudycomparingthepuncturestob2andb3inendoscopicultrasoundguidedhepaticogastrostomy AT shibukitaro retrospectivemulticenterstudycomparingthepuncturestob2andb3inendoscopicultrasoundguidedhepaticogastrostomy AT okumurakei retrospectivemulticenterstudycomparingthepuncturestob2andb3inendoscopicultrasoundguidedhepaticogastrostomy AT koboriikuhiro retrospectivemulticenterstudycomparingthepuncturestob2andb3inendoscopicultrasoundguidedhepaticogastrostomy AT miyagakiaki retrospectivemulticenterstudycomparingthepuncturestob2andb3inendoscopicultrasoundguidedhepaticogastrostomy AT sasakiyoshihiro retrospectivemulticenterstudycomparingthepuncturestob2andb3inendoscopicultrasoundguidedhepaticogastrostomy AT takanoyuichi retrospectivemulticenterstudycomparingthepuncturestob2andb3inendoscopicultrasoundguidedhepaticogastrostomy AT matsumotokeita retrospectivemulticenterstudycomparingthepuncturestob2andb3inendoscopicultrasoundguidedhepaticogastrostomy AT mashimahirosato retrospectivemulticenterstudycomparingthepuncturestob2andb3inendoscopicultrasoundguidedhepaticogastrostomy |