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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Sekine, Masanari, Hashimoto, Yusuke, Shibuki, Taro, Okumura, Kei, Kobori, Ikuhiro, Miyagaki, Aki, Sasaki, Yoshihiro, Takano, Yuichi, Matsumoto, Keita, Mashima, Hirosato
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