摘要
AIM: To evaluate the efficacy of endoscopic ultrasound guided biliary drainage(EUS-BD) in patients with surgically altered anatomies.METHODS: We performed a search of the MEDLINE database for studies published between 2001 to July2014 reporting on EUS-BD in patients with surgically altered anatomy using the terms "EUS drainage" and "altered anatomy". All relevant articles were accessed in full text. A manual search of the reference lists of relevant retrieved articles was also performed. Only fulltext English papers were included. Data regarding age, gender, diagnosis, method of EUS-BD and intervention, type of altered anatomy, technical success, clinical success, and complications were extracted and collected. Anatomic alterations were categorized as: group 1, Billroth Ⅰ; group 2, Billroth Ⅱ; group 4, Rouxen-Y with gastric bypass; and group 3, all other types. RESULTS: Twenty three articles identified in the literature search, three reports were from the same group with different numbers of cases. In total, 101 cases of EUS-BD in patients with altered anatomy were identified. Twenty-seven cases had no information and were excluded. Seventy four cases were included for analysis. Data of EUS-BD in patients categorized as group 1, 2 and 4 were limited with 2, 3 and 6 cases with EUS-BD done respectively. Thirty four cases with EUS-BD were reported in group 3. The pooled technical success, clinical success, and complication rates of all reports with available data were 89.18%, 91.07% and 17.5%, respectively. The results are similar to the reported outcomes of EUS-BD in general, however, with limited data of EUS-BD in patients with altered anatomy rendered it difficult to draw a firm conclusion. CONCLUSION: EUS-BD may be an option for patients with altered anatomy after a failed endoscopic-retrogradecholangiography in centers with expertise in EUS-BD procedures in a research setting.
AIM To evaluate the efficacy of endoscopic ultrasoundguided biliary drainage （EUS-BD） in patients withsurgically altered anatomies.METHODS： We performed a search of the MEDLINEdatabase for studies published between 2001 to July2014 reporting on EUS-BD in patients with surgicallyaltered anatomy using the terms ＂EUS drainage＂ and＂altered anatomy＂. All relevant articles were accessedin full text. A manual search of the reference lists ofrelevant retrieved articles was also performed. Only fulltextEnglish papers were included. Data regarding age,gender, diagnosis, method of EUS-BD and intervention,type of altered anatomy, technical success, clinicalsuccess, and complications were extracted andcollected. Anatomic alterations were categorized as：group 1, Billroth Ⅰ; group 2, Billroth Ⅱ; group 4, Rouxen-Y with gastric bypass; and group 3, all other types.RESULTS： Twenty three articles identified in theliterature search, three reports were from the samegroup with different numbers of cases. In total, 101cases of EUS-BD in patients with altered anatomy wereidentified. Twenty-seven cases had no information andwere excluded. Seventy four cases were included foranalysis. Data of EUS-BD in patients categorized asgroup 1, 2 and 4 were limited with 2, 3 and 6 caseswith EUS-BD done respectively. Thirty four cases withEUS-BD were reported in group 3. The pooled technicalsuccess, clinical success, and complication rates ofall reports with available data were 89.18%, 91.07%and 17.5%, respectively. The results are similar to thereported outcomes of EUS-BD in general, however, withlimited data of EUS-BD in patients with altered anatomyrendered it difficult to draw a firm conclusion.CONCLUSION： EUS-BD may be an option for patientswith altered anatomy after a failed endoscopic-retrogradecholangiographyin centers with expertise in EUS-BDprocedures in a research setting.
