Endoscopic and percutaneous biliary interventions in patients with altered upper gastrointestinal anatomy-the Munich Multicenter Experience

Endoscopic Biliary Drainage in Surgically Altered Anatomy

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is considered the preferred method for managing biliary obstructions. However, the prevalence of surgically modified anatomies often poses challenges, making the standard side-viewing duodenoscope unable to reach the papilla in most cases. The increasing instances of surgically altered anatomies (SAAs) result from higher rates of bariatric procedures and surgical interventions for pancreatic malignancies. Conventional ERCP with a side-viewing endoscope remains effective when there is continuity between the stomach and duodenum. Nonetheless, percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) or surgery has historically been used as an alternative for biliary drainage in malignant or benign conditions. The evolving landscape has seen various endoscopic approaches tailored to anatomical variations. Innovative methodologies such as cap-assisted forward-viewing endoscopy and enteroscopy have enabled the performance of ERCP. Despite their utilization, procedural complexities, prolonged durations, and accessibility challenges have emerged. As a result, there is a growing interest in novel enteroscopy and endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) techniques to ensure the overall success of endoscopic biliary drainage. Notably, EUS has revolutionized this domain, particularly through several techniques detailed in the review. The rendezvous approach has been pivotal in this field. The antegrade approach, involving biliary tree puncturing, allows for the validation and treatment of strictures in an antegrade fashion. The EUS-transmural approach involves connecting a tract of the biliary system with the GI tract lumen. Moreover, the EUS-directed transgastric ERCP (EDGE) procedure, combining EUS and ERCP, presents a promising solution after gastric bypass. These advancements hold promise for expanding the horizons of comprehensive and successful biliary drainage interventions, laying the groundwork for further advancements in endoscopic procedures.

[Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in patients after bilioenteric anstomosis]

OBJECTIVE

To distinguish clinical features, safety and efficiency of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in patients after bilioenteric anstomosis based on retrospectively analyzed clinical data and endoscopy procedures.

METHODS

Data extracted from patients after bilioenteric anstomosis due to biliary disease treated with ERCP from January 2005 to December 2021 in the Department of Gastroenterology, Peking University Third Hospital were retrospectively analyzed. Clinical data and endoscopic pictures were reevaluated and analyzed. The patients were divided into three groups, including the patients with choledochoduodenostomy (CDD), Roux-en-Y hepaticojejunostomy (RYHJ) and Whipple. Differences between ERCP success and failure were conducted.

RESULTS

In the study, 89 cases with 132 ERCP procedures were involved, 9-80 years old, median 57 years old, containing 4 CDD, 30 RYHJ, 54 Whipple and 1 bile duct ileocecal anastomosis patients; The time between ERCP and surgery were 30 (1-40), 2.75 (0.5-14), 2 (0.3-19), and 10 years, respectively; The time between surgery and symptom were 240 (3-360), 12 (1-156), 22 (0-216), and 60 months, respectively. Fifty percent of CDD could succeed only under local anaesthesia, RYHJ (96.7%) and Whipple (100.0%) needed under general anaesthesia (P < 0.001). Successful first entry rates of CDD, RYHJ and Whipple were 100.0%, 40.0% and 77.8%, respectively. After changing the endoscopy type, successful entry rate could increase to 43.3% of RYHJ and 83.3% of Whipple. The successful entry rate of different anastomotic methods was significant (P < 0.001). The cannulation success rates of CDD, RYHJ and Whipple were 100.0%, 53.8% and 86.7% respectively, with significant difference between the groups (P=0.031). ERCP success rates of CDD, RYHJ and Whipple were 100.0%, 33.3% and 78.8% respectively, with significant difference between the groups (P < 0.001). Complications were found in 23.9% (21/88) patients, including infection (14.8%), pancreatitis (9.2%), bleeding (3.4%), and perforation (2.3%) ranked by incidence. Causes of ERCP in post bilioenteric anstomosis were anastomotic stenosis (50.0%, benign 39.3%, malignant 10.7%), choledocholithiasis (37.5%) and reflux cholangitis (12.5%). Anastomotic method was the only predicting factor of ERCP success in patients after bilioenteric anstomosis (OR=7, 95%CI: 2.591-18.912, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

ERCP in post bilioenteric anstomosis patients with gastrointestinal reconstruction need general anaesthe-sia, with good safety and efficiency. The successful rate of RYHJ was significantly lower than Whipple. Anastomotic method was the only predicting factor of ERCP success.

Comparison between Enteroscopy-, Laparoscopy- and Endoscopic Ultrasound-Assisted Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangio-Pancreatography in Patients with Surgically Altered Anatomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background and Aims: Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), in surgically altered anatomy (SAA), can be challenging and the optimal technique selection remains debatable. Most common foregut interventions resulting to this burden consist of Billroth II gastrectomy, Whipple surgery and Roux-en-Y anastomoses, including gastric by-pass. This systematic review, with meta-analysis, aimed to compare the rates of successful enteroscope-assisted (EA)-, endosonography-directed transgastric- (EDGE), and laparoscopy-assisted (LA)-ERCP. Methods: A systematic research (Medline) was performed for relative studies, through January 2022. The primary outcome was technical success, defined as approaching the ampulla site. Secondary outcomes included the desired duct cannulation, successful therapeutic manipulations, and complication rates. We performed meta-analyses of pooled data, and subgroup analysis considering the EA-ERCP subtypes (spiral-, double and single balloon-enteroscope). Pooled rates are reported as percentages with 95% Confidence Intervals (95%CIs). Results: Seventy-six studies were included (3569 procedures). Regarding primary outcome, EA-ERCP was the least effective [87.3% (95%CI: 85.3–89.4); I2: 91.0%], whereas EDGE and LA-ERCP succeeded in 97.9% (95%CI: 96.4–99.4; I2: 0%) and 99.1% (95%CI: 98.6–99.7; I2: 0%), respectively. Similarly, duct cannulation and therapeutic success rates were 74.7% (95%CI: 71.3–78.0; I2: 86.9%) and 69.1% (95%CI: 65.3–72.9; I2: 91.8%) after EA-ERCP, 98% (95%CI: 96.5–99.6; I2: 0%) and 97.9% (95%CI: 96.3–99.4) after EDGE, and 98.6% (95%CI: 97.9–99.2; I2: 0%) and 98.5% (95%CI: 97.8–99.2; I2: 0%) after LA-ERCP, respectively. The noticed high heterogeneity in EA-ERCP results probably reflects the larger number of included studies, the different enteroscopy modalities and the variety of surgical interventions. Comparisons revealed the superiority of LA-ERCP and EDGE over EA-ERCP (p ≤ 0.001) for all success-related outcomes, though LA-ERCP and EDGE were comparable (p ≥ 0.43). ERCP with spiral-enteroscope was inferior to balloon-enteroscope, while the type of the balloon-enteroscope did not affect the results. Most adverse events were recorded after LA-ERCP [15.1% (95%CI: 9.40–20.8); I2: 87.1%], and EDGE [13.1% (95%CI: 7.50–18.8); I2: 48.2%], significantly differing from EA-ERCP [5.7% (95%CI: 4.50–6.80); p ≤ 0.04; I2: 64.2%]. Conclusions: LA-ERCP and EDGE were associated with higher technical, cannulation, and therapeutic success compared to EA-ERCP, though accompanied with more adverse events.