Endoscopic ultrasonography-guided pancreatic duct drainage after failed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in patients with malignant and benign pancreatic duct obstructions

A review on pancreatic duct stents: materials and emerging trends

Pancreatic duct strictures, which can arise from trauma, inflammation, or malignancy, often result in complications such as duct obstruction, pancreatic parenchymal hypertension, and ischemia. Endoscopic stenting is an effective therapeutic approach for managing these strictures. However, traditional plastic pancreatic duct stents fail to conform to the physiological curvature of the pancreas, while metal pancreatic duct stents with flared ends reduce migration but are associated with complications such as de novo strictures. Additionally, plastic and metal pancreatic duct stents require surgical removal. Whereas biodegradable pancreatic duct stents present a promising alternative due to their superior biocompatibility and ability to decompose into non-toxic materials, potentially eliminating the need for additional surgeries. Despite these advantages, biodegradable pancreatic duct stents remain in the experiment stage. This review assesses current materials of pancreatic duct stents, and emphasizes recent advancements in biodegradable options and emerging trends in clinical applications.

Technical review of endoscopic ultrasound-guided drainage/anastomosis and trans-endosonographically created route procedures for the treatment of pancreatic diseases

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided pancreatic duct drainage includes two procedures: EUS-guided drainage/anastomosis (EUS-D/A) and trans-papillary drainage with EUS-assisted pancreatic rendezvous. EUS-guided pancreatogastrostomy is the most common EUS-D/A procedure and is recommended as a salvage procedure in cases in which endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography fails or is difficult. However, initial EUS-D/A is performed in patients with surgically altered anatomy at our institution. It is one of the most difficult interventional EUS procedures and has a high incidence of adverse events. The technical difficulties differ according to etiology, and the incidence of adverse events varies between initial EUS-D/A and subsequent trans-endosonographically/EUS-guided created route procedures. Hence, it is important to meticulously prepare a procedure based on the patient's condition and the available devices. The technical difficulties in EUS-D/A include: (1) determination of the puncture point, (2) selection of a puncture needle and guidewire, (3) guidewire manipulation, and (4) dilation of the puncture route and stenting. Proper technical procedures are important to increase the success rate and reduce the incidence and severity of adverse events. The complexity of EUS-D/A is also contingent on the severity of pancreatic fibrosis and stricture. In post-pancreatectomy cases, determination of the puncture site is important for success because of the remnant pancreas. Trans-endosonographically/EUS-guided created route procedures following initial EUS-D/A are also important for achieving the treatment goal. This article focuses on effective strategies for initial EUS-D/A, based on the etiology and condition of the pancreas. We mainly discuss EUS-D/A, including its indications, techniques, and success-enhancing strategies.

Endoscopic Ultrasound-guided Pancreatic Duct Drainage: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided pancreatic duct drainage (EUS-PD) has emerged as a minimally invasive therapeutic option for patients who cannot undergo traditional retrograde access to the pancreatic duct due to difficulties in cannulation or surgically altered anatomy. This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the overall outcomes and safety of EUS-PD.

METHODS

We conducted a comprehensive search of major databases, including PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Science Citation Index, up until October 2023. The meta-analysis focused on technical and clinical success rates, as well as the overall adverse event (AE) rate.

RESULTS

A total of 27 trials involving 902 patients were included in the study. The cumulative rate of technical success is 89%, and the clinical success is 88%, whereas the AE rate was 17%. The most common AE observed was post-EUS-PD acute pancreatitis, with a rate of 3%. In addition, the cumulative rates of bleeding, perforation, pancreatic leak, and infection were 2%, 2%, 1%, and 1%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

EUS-PD demonstrates highly favorable technical and clinical success rates, alongside acceptable AE rates, making it a highly effective procedure.

Current status and future perspectives for endoscopic treatment of local complications in chronic pancreatitis

Chronic pancreatitis is a progressive disease characterized by irregular fibrosis, cellular infiltration, and parenchymal loss within the pancreas. Chronic pancreatitis treatment includes lifestyle modifications based on disease etiology, dietary adjustments appropriate for each stage and condition, drug therapy, endoscopic treatments, and surgical treatments. Although surgical treatments of symptomatic chronic pancreatitis provide good pain relief, endoscopic therapies are recommended as the first-line treatment because they are minimally invasive. In recent years, endoscopic therapy has emerged as an alternative treatment method to surgery for managing local complications in patients with chronic pancreatitis. For pancreatic stone removal, a combination of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and endoscopic extraction is used. For refractory pancreatic duct stones, intracorporeal fragmentation techniques, such as pancreatoscopy-guided electrohydraulic lithotripsy and laser lithotripsy, offer additional options. Interventional endoscopic ultrasound has become the primary treatment modality for pancreatic pseudocysts, except in the absence of disconnected pancreatic duct syndrome. This review focuses on the current status of endoscopic therapies for common local complications of chronic pancreatitis, including updated information in the past few years.

Endoscopic Ultrasonography-Guided Drainage of the Pancreatic Duct (EUS-PD)-Indications and Results with a Literature Review

Background/Objectives: Drawing upon over twenty years of clinical experience in endoscopic and endosonographic procedures, along with comprehensive literature research, we present an overview on EUS-guided pancreatography and pancreatic duct drainage (EUS-PD) as an alternative approach, encompassing indications, procedural methods, and outcomes, including complications and the success rate. Methods: Narrative review. Results: (corner points): EUS-PD is indicated for cases, for which conventional methods are ineffective due to altered abdominal anatomy of the upper gastrointestinal (GI) tract, such as congenital or postoperative conditions that prevent access to the papilla or pancreatoenteric anastomosis. It is also considered if there is symptomatic retention of the pancreatic duct due to pathological changes in the papillary region or stenosis of the pancreatic duct or anastomosis, especially if surgery is not feasible or poses higher risks. EUS-PD has a technical success rate ranging from 25 to 92%, albeit with a complication rate spanning from 14 to 40%, primarily comprising bleeding, perforation, pancreatitis, and pain. Long-term clinical success, measured by pain and symptom relief, falls within a range of 65-85%. Conclusions: The method offers advantages such as minimal invasiveness, enhanced quality of life, the potential for endoscopic revision in the case of complications, and compatibility with most conventional endoscopic instruments requiring extensive expertise in interventional endoscopy and endosonography.

Endoscopic ultrasonography-guided drainage of the pancreatic duct (EUS-PD) in postoperative anastomotic stenosis after previous pancreatic resection

As an alternative instead of a repeat surgical intervention, results (feasibility, safety, and technical and clinical success rate) of EUS-guided pancreatic duct drainage (EUS-PD) in a consecutive patient cohort because of symptomatic postoperative anastomotic stenosis as part of a unicenter observational study in daily clinical practice are presented.EUS-guided puncture (19-G needle) of the pancreatic duct, pancreaticography, and advancement of a guide wire (0.035 inches) via the anastomosis into the small intestine after previous dilatation of the transgastric access site (using ring knife): 1. if possible, balloon dilatation of the anastomosis and placement of a prosthesis as a gastro-pancreaticojejunostomy ("ring drainage", "gastro-pancreaticojejunostomy"); 2. if not possible (frustrating advancement of the guide wire), again, dilatation of the transgastric access site (using ring knife) and balloon dilatation with a following transgastric placement of a prosthesis (pancreaticogastrostomy).Out of the complete consecutive patient series with EUS-PD (n=119 cases) from 2004 to 2015, 34 patients (28.5%) were found with a medical history significant for previous surgical intervention at the pancreas who were approached using EUS-PD: in detail, pancreatic head resection in 1.) chronic pancreatitis (n=21; 61.8%) and 2.) malignant tumor lesions (n=13; 38.2%), resp. Pancreaticography was achieved in all subjects (n=34/34; rate, 100%). In 9/34 cases, a sufficient flow of contrast media via the anastomotic segment was detected; therefore, drainage was not placed. In the remaining 25 cases, the primary technical success (successful placement of drainage) rate was 64% (n=16/25 cases). In 9/25 patients, only dilatation using the passage of a ring knife over the guide wire and a balloon was performed. In detail, stent insertion was either not necessary because of good contrast flow via anastomosis (n=4) or not successful because of dislocation of the guide wire (n=5). However, these nine subjects underwent reintervention: in five patients, ring drainage (n=3) and transgastric drainage (n=2) were achieved, resulting in the definitive technical (drainage placement) success rate of 84% (n=21/25). In further detail, the two different techniques of drainage insertion such as pancreaticogastrostomy and gastro-pancreaticojejunostomy (ring drainage) were used in 11 patients (plastic stent, n=8; metal stent, n=3 [biliary wallstent, n=2; LAMS, n=1]) and ten subjects, resp.Finally, long-term clinical success was 92% (n=23/25).Overall, there were complications in 6/34 individuals (rate, 17.6%): bleeding, pressing ulcer by the stent, abscess within the lower sac, postinterventional pseudocyst (n=1 each), and paraluminal collection of contrast medium (n=2).Alternative EUS-PD is feasible and safe and can avoid surgical intervention; this can result in a distinct improvement in the quality of life, including an acceptable interventional risk. Because of the high technical demands, EUS-PD should only be performed in centers of interventional EUS, with great expertise in this field. Further clinical long-term observation, greater patient cohorts, evaluation of procedural knowledge and data, and further technical advances are required.

Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Pancreatic Duct Drainage

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided pancreatic duct drainage (EUS-PDD) is a method of decompressing the pancreatic duct (PD) if unable to access the papilla or surgical anastomosis, particularly in nonsurgical candidates. The 2 types of EUS-PDD are EUS-assisted pancreatic rendezvous (EUS-PRV) and EUS-guided pancreaticogastrostomy (EUS-PG). EUS-PRV should be considered in patients with accessible papilla or anastomosis, while EUS-PG is a comparable alternative in surgically altered foregut anatomy. While technical and clinical successes range from 79% to 100%, adverse events occur in approximately 20%. A multidisciplinary approach that considers the patient's anatomy, clinical indication, and long-term goals should be discussed with surgical and interventional radiology colleagues.

Feasibility and safety of a novel plastic stent designed specifically for endoscopic ultrasound-guided pancreatic duct drainage

Background and study aims Endoscopic ultrasound-guided pancreatic duct drainage (EUS-PD) is emerging as an effective alternative treatment for obstructive pancreatitis after unsuccessful endoscopic retrograde pancreatography (ERP). However, the high incidence of adverse events associated with EUS-PD (approximately 20%) remains an issue. Recently, we developed a novel plastic stent for EUS-PD, with a radiopaque marker positioned at approximately one-third of the length from the distal end of the stent and side holes positioned exclusively distal to the marker. This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility and safety of using this stent in EUS-PD. Patients and methods We retrospectively reviewed data from 10 patients who underwent EUS-PD with the novel plastic stent at the National Cancer Center Hospital between March 2021 and October 2023. Technical and clinical success, procedure times, adverse events (AEs), recurrent pancreatic duct obstruction (RPO), and time to RPO were assessed. Results Of the 10 patients, five had postoperative benign pancreaticojejunal anastomotic strictures and five had malignant pancreatic duct obstruction. The technical and clinical success rates were both 100% (10/10). An AE (self-limited abdominal pain) occurred in one patient (10.0%). Two patients (20.0%) died of their primary disease during the follow-up period (median, 44 days; range, 25-272 days). The incidence of RPO was 10.0% (1/10), and the 3-month non-RPO rate was 83.3%. Conclusions The novel plastic stent shows potential as a useful and safe tool in EUS-PD.

Techniques and Outcomes of Endoscopic Ultrasound Guided-Pancreatic Duct Drainage (EUS- PDD)

Endoscopic ultrasound guided-pancreatic duct drainage (EUS- PDD) is one of the most technically challenging procedures for the interventional endoscopist. The most common indications for EUS- PDD are patients with main pancreatic duct obstruction who have failed conventional endoscopic retrograde pancreatography (ERP) drainage or those with surgically altered anatomy. EUS- PDD can be performed via two approaches: the EUS-rendezvous (EUS- RV) or the EUS-transmural drainage (TMD) techniques. The purpose of this review is to provide an updated review of the techniques and equipment available for EUS- PDD and the outcomes of EUS- PDD reported in the literature. Recent developments and future directions surrounding the procedure will also be discussed.

Laparoscopic revision of duct-to-mucosa pancreaticojejunostomy anastomotic stricture after laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy

PURPOSE

Pancreaticojejunostomy stricture (PJS) is an uncommon late complication of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD). The incidence, clinical characteristics, and managements of PJS after LPD are still unreported.

METHODS

All patients undergoing LPD between January 2015 and December 2019 were identified from an institutional database. All pancreaticojejunostomies were performed using Bing's duct-to-mucosa anastomosis. PJS was diagnosed by computed tomography or magnetic resonance cholangio-pancreatography with secretin administration. Re-operation was performed in those patients with persistent abdominal pain and/or recurrent pancreatitis. Patients' demographic characteristics, perioperative outcomes, and follow-up outcomes were retrospectively collected.

RESULTS

During the 5-year study period, 506 cases of LPD were performed. Among these patients, 13 patients (2.6%) were diagnosed with PJS. Only seven patients presented with abdominal pain and/or recurrent pancreatitis and underwent re-operation. The interval between the diagnosis of PJS and the original operation was 23 months. The median operative time was 140 min (range 90 to 210 min). The estimated blood loss was 40 ml (range 10 to 100 ml). The post-operative outcomes were favorable. Only one patient suffered from biochemical fistula. Six of these 7 patients (85.7%) reported complete pain resolution after the re-operation. The other patient reported partial resolution after surgery. All patients did not need to take analgesic drugs after the operation.

CONCLUSION

PJS following LPD is a late complication that was underestimated. It is technically safe and clinically effective to perform laparoscopic revision of the PJS after LPD.

EUS-guided transenteric pancreatic duct drainage

Endoscopic drainage requires transpapillary access to the pancreatic duct during ERCP. When ERCP failed, EUS-guided pancreatico-gastro or bulbostomy and/or rendez-vous technique offers an alternative to surgery. Although data has demonstrated that the procedure can be safe and effective, EUS-guided PD drainage remains one of the most technically challenging therapeutic EUS interventions, as evidenced by the multiple considerations on device selection and the risk of severe complications.

Pancreatic duct stents

Pancreatic duct stenting using endoscopy or surgery is widely used for the management of benign and malignant pancreatic diseases. Endoscopic pancreatic stents are mainly used to relieve pain caused by chronic pancreatitis and pancreas divisum, and to treat pancreatic duct disruption and stenotic pancreaticointestinal anastomosis after surgery. They are also used to prevent postendoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis and postoperative pancreatic fistula, treat pancreatic cancer, and locate radiolucent stones. Recent advances in endoscopic techniques, such as endoscopic ultrasonography and balloon enteroscopy, and newly designed stents have broadened the indications for pancreatic duct stenting. In this review we outlined the types, insertion procedures, efficacy, and complications of endoscopic pancreatic duct stent placement, and summarized the applications of pancreatic duct stents in surgery.

Therapeutic endoscopic ultrasound: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Technical Review

1:  ESGE recommends a prolonged course of a prophylactic broad-spectrum antibiotic in patients with ascites who are undergoing therapeutic endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) procedures.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 2:  ESGE recommends placement of partially or fully covered self-expandable metal stents during EUS-guided hepaticogastrostomy for biliary drainage in malignant disease.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 3:  ESGE recommends EUS-guided pancreatic duct (PD) drainage should only be performed in high volume expert centers, owing to the complexity of this technique and the high risk of adverse events.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 4:  ESGE recommends a stepwise approach to EUS-guided PD drainage in patients with favorable anatomy, starting with rendezvous-assisted endoscopic retrograde pancreatography (RV-ERP), followed by antegrade or transmural drainage only when RV-ERP fails or is not feasible.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 5:  ESGE suggests performing transduodenal EUS-guided gallbladder drainage with a lumen-apposing metal stent (LAMS), rather than using the transgastric route, as this may reduce the risk of stent dysfunction.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 6:  ESGE recommends using saline instillation for small-bowel distension during EUS-guided gastroenterostomy.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 7:  ESGE recommends the use of saline instillation with a 19G needle and an electrocautery-enhanced LAMS for EUS-directed transgastric endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (EDGE) procedures.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 8:  ESGE recommends the use of either 15- or 20-mm LAMSs for EDGE, with a preference for 20-mm LAMSs when considering a same-session ERCP.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of endoscopic ultrasound drainage for the management of fluid collections after pancreas surgery

BACKGROUND

The outcomes of endoscopic ultrasonography-guided drainage (EUSD) in treatment of pancreas fluid collection (PFC) after pancreas surgeries have not been evaluated systematically. The current systematic review and meta-analysis aim to evaluate the outcomes of EUSD in patients with PFC after pancreas surgery and compare it with percutaneous drainage (PCD).

METHODS

PubMed and Web of Science databases were searched for studies reporting outcomes EUSD in treatment of PFC after pancreas surgeries, from their inception until January 2022. Two meta-analyses were performed: (A) a systematic review and single-arm meta-analysis of EUSD (meta-analysis A) and (B) two-arm meta-analysis comparing the outcomes of EUSD and PCD (meta-analysis B). Pooled proportion of the outcomes in meta-analysis A as well as odds ratio (OR) and mean difference (MD) in meta-analysis B was calculated to determine the technical and clinical success rates, complications rate, hospital stay, and recurrence rate. ROBINS-I tool was used to assess the risk of bias.

RESULTS

The literature search retrieved 610 articles, 25 of which were eligible for inclusion. Included clinical studies comprised reports on 695 patients. Twenty-five studies (477 patients) were included in meta-analysis A and eight studies (356 patients) were included in meta-analysis B. In meta-analysis A, the technical and clinical success rates of EUSD were 94% and 87%, respectively, with post-procedural complications of 14% and recurrence rates of 9%. Meta-analysis B showed comparable technical and clinical success rates as well as complications rates between EUSD and PCD. EUSD showed significantly shorter duration of hospital stay compared to that of patients treated with PCD.

CONCLUSION

EUSD seems to be associated with high technical and clinical success rates, with low rates of procedure-related complications. Although EUSD leads to shorter hospital stay compared to PCD, the certainty of evidence was low in this regard.

Early and long-term clinical outcomes of endoscopic interventions for benign pancreatic duct stricture/obstruction-the possibility of additional clinical effects of endoscopic ultrasonography-guided pancreatic drainage

OBJECTIVES

For benign pancreatic duct strictures/obstructions (BPDS/O), endoscopic ultrasonography-guided pancreatic drainage (EUS-PD) is performed when endoscopic transpapillary pancreatic drainage (ETPD) fails. We clarified the clinical outcomes for patients with BPDS/O who underwent endoscopic interventions through the era where EUS-PD was available.

METHODS

Forty-five patients with BPDS/O who underwent ETPD/EUS-PD were included. We retrospectively investigated overall technical and clinical success rates for endoscopic interventions, adverse events, and clinical outcomes after successful endoscopic interventions.

RESULTS

The technical success rates for ETPD and EUS-PD were 77% (35/45) and 80% (8/10), respectively, and the overall technical success rate using two drainage procedures was 91% (41/45). Among the 41 patients who underwent successful endoscopic procedures, the clinical success rates were 97% for the symptomatic patients (35/36). The rates of procedure-related pancreatitis after ETPD and EUS-PD were 13% and 30%, respectively. After successful endoscopic interventions, the cumulative 3-year rate of developing recurrent symptoms/pancreatitis was calculated to be 27%, and only two patients finally needed surgery. Continuous smoking after endoscopic interventions was shown to be a risk factor for developing recurrent symptoms/pancreatitis.

CONCLUSIONS

By adding EUS-PD to ETPD, the technical success rate for endoscopic interventions for BPDS/O was more than 90%, and the clinical success rate was nearly 100%. Due to the low rate of surgery after endoscopic interventions, including EUS-PD, for patients with BPDS/O, EUS-PD may contribute to their good clinical courses as a salvage treatment for refractory BPDS/O.

EUS guided pancreatic duct decompression in surgically altered anatomy or failed ERCP - A systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression

INTRODUCTION

EUS-PD (EUS guided pancreatic duct drainage) is classified into two types: EUS-guided rendezvous techniques and EUS-guided PD stenting. Prior studies showed significant variation in terms of technical success, clinical success and adverse events.

METHODS

Three independent reviewers performed a comprehensive review of all original articles published from inception to June 2020, describing pancreatic duct drainage utilizing EUS. Primary outcomes were technical success, clinical success of EUS-PDD and safety of EUS-PD in terms of adverse events. All meta-analysis and meta-regression tests were 2-tailed. Finally, probability of publication bias was assessed using funnel plots and with Egger's test.

RESULTS

A total of sixteen studies (503 patients) described the use of EUS-PD for pancreatic duct decompression yielded a pooled technical success rate was 81.4% (95% CI 72-88.1, I 2 = 74). Meta-regression revealed that proportion of altered anatomy and method of dilation of tract explain the variance. Overall pooled clinical success rate was 84.6% (95% CI 75.4-90.8, I 2 = 50.18). Meta-regression analysis revealed that the type of pancreatic duct decompression, proportion of altered anatomy and follow up time explained the variance. Overall pooled adverse event rate was 21.3% (95% CI 16.8-26.7, I 2 = 36.6). The most common post procedure adverse event was post procedure pain. Overall pooled adverse event rate of post EUS-PD pancreatitis was 5% (95% CI 3.2-7.8, I 2 = 0).

CONCLUSION

The systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression provides answer to the questions of the overall technical success, clinical success and the adverse event rate of EUS-PD by summarizing the available literature.

Endoscopic retrograde pancreatography-guided versus endoscopic ultrasound-guided technique for pancreatic duct cannulation in patients with pancreaticojejunostomy stenosis: a systematic literature review

BACKGROUND

Stenosis of the pancreaticojejunostomy is a well-known long-term complication of pancreaticoduodenectomy. Traditionally, the endoscopic approach consisted of endoscopic retrograde pancreatography (ERP). Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided intervention has emerged as an alternative, but the success rate and adverse event rate of both treatment modalities are poorly known. We aimed to compare the outcome data of both interventions.

METHODS

We performed a systematic literature search using the Pubmed/Medline and Embase databases in order to summarize the available data regarding efficacy and complications of ERP- and EUS-guided pancreatic duct (PD) drainage and compare these outcome data using uniform outcome measures in a multilevel logistic model. RESULTS : 13 studies were included, involving 77 patients who underwent ERP-guided drainage, 145 who underwent EUS-guided drainage, and 12 patients who underwent both modalities. An EUS-guided approach was significantly superior to an ERP-guided approach with regard to pancreatic duct opacification (87 % vs. 30 %; P < 0.001), cannulation success (79 % vs. 26 %; P < 0.001), and stent placement (72 % vs. 20 %; P < 0.001). An EUS-guided approach also appeared superior with regard to clinical outcomes such a pain resolution. The adverse event rate between the two treatment modalities could not be compared due to insufficient data. All included studies were found to be of low quality.

CONCLUSION

Based on limited available data, EUS-guided PD intervention appears superior to ERP-guided PD intervention.

Which Are the Most Suitable Stents for Interventional Endoscopic Ultrasound?

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided interventions provide easy access to structures adjacent to the gastrointestinal tract, effectively targeting them for therapeutic purposes. They play an important role in the management of pancreatic fluid collections (PFC) and bile duct (BD) and pancreatic duct (PD) drainage in cases of failed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) or gallbladder (GB) drainage. Specially designed stents and delivery systems for EUS-guided transluminal interventions allow various new applications and improve the efficacy and safety of these procedures. In fact, EUS-guided drainage has emerged as the treatment of choice for the management of PFC, and recent innovations such as fully covered metal stents (including lumen-apposing metal stents) have improved outcomes in patients with walled-off necrosis. Similarly, EUS-guided BD and PD drainage with specially designed stents can be beneficial for patients with failed ERCP due to an inaccessible papilla, gastric outlet obstruction, or surgically altered anatomy. EUS-guided GB drainage is also performed using dedicated stents in patients with acute cholecystitis who are not fit for surgery. Although the field of dedicated stents for interventional EUS is rapidly advancing with increasing innovations, the debate on the most appropriate stent for EUS-guided drainage has resurfaced. Furthermore, some important questions remain unaddressed, such as which stent improves clinical outcomes and safety in EUS-guided drainage. Herein, the current status and problems of the available stents are reviewed, including the applicable indications, long-term clinical outcomes, comparison between each stent, and their future prospects.

Efficacy and safety of endoscopic ultrasound-guided pancreatic duct drainage (EUS-PDD): A systematic review and meta-analysis of 714 patients

Background and study aims  Endoscopic ultrasound guided pancreatic duct drainage (EUS-PDD) is a minimal-invasive therapeutic option to surgery and in patients with failed endoscopic retrograde pancreatography (ERP). The aim of this review was to quantitatively appraise the clinical outcomes of EUS-PDD by meta-analysis methods. Methods  We searched multiple databases from inception through March 2020 to identify studies that reported on EUS-PDD. Pooled rates of technical success, successful drainage of pancreatic duct, clinical success, and adverse events were calculated. Study heterogeneity was assessed using I ² % and 95 % prediction interval. Results  A total of 22 studies (714 patients) were included. The pooled rate of technical success in EUS-PDD was 84.8 % (95 % CI 79.1-89.2). The pooled rate of successful PD drained by EUS-PDD was 77.5 % (95 % CI 63.1-87.4). The pooled rate of clinical success of EUS-PDD was 89.2 % (95 % CI 82.1-93.7). The pooled rate of all adverse events was 18.1 % (95 % CI 14.2-22.9). On sub-group analysis, the pooled technical success and clinical success of EUS-PDD from Japanese data were considerably superior (91.2 %, 83-95.6 & 92.5 %, 83.9-96.7, respectively). The pooled rate of post EUS-PDD acute pancreatitis was 6.6 % (95 % CI 4.5-9.4), bleeding was 4.1 % (95 % CI 2.7-6.2), perforation and/or pneumoperitoneum was 3.1 % (95 % CI 1.9-5), pancreatic leak and/or pancreatic fluid collection was 2.3 % (95 % CI 1.4-4), and infection was 2.8 % (95 % CI 1.7-4.6). Conclusion  EUS-PDD demonstrates high technical success and clinical success rates with acceptable adverse events. Technical success was especially high for anastomotic strictures.

Endoscopic endgame for obstructive pancreatopathy: outcomes of anterograde EUS-guided pancreatic duct drainage. A dual-center study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Anterograde endoscopic ultrasound-guided pancreatic duct drainage (EUS-PDD) refers to transmural drainage of the main pancreatic duct via an endoprosthesis passed anterograde through the gastric (or intestinal) wall. Anterograde EUS-PDD is a rescue procedure for recalcitrant cases of benign obstructive pancreatopathy.

METHODS

We conducted a dual-center retrospective chart review of 28 patients (mean age, 59 years; 50% female) who underwent attempted anterograde EUS-PDD between April 2016 and September 2019 for chronic pancreatitis (CP) (93%) or pancreaticojejunostomy stenosis (PJS) after Whipple resection (7%). The study endpoint was achievement of transpapillary/transanastomotic drainage (definitive therapy).

RESULTS

Gastropancreaticoenterostomy (ring drainage, definitive therapy) was successfully performed during the index procedure in the 2 patients with PJS (technical success, 100%). Clinical success was 100% in the 2 ring drainage recipients during a mean 18-month follow-up period. The remaining 26 patients with CP underwent attempted pancreaticogastrostomy (PG) with 81% technical success, 75% clinical success, and 15% adverse events (AEs). Repeat endoscopic transmural interventions were performed in the 15 patients with clinical success after PG creation. Definitive therapy transpired in all 15 patients after a median 1 repeat procedure per patient. Clinical success after definitive therapy was maintained in all 15 patients (100%) during a median 4.5-month follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

In agreement with previous studies, our study showed mild to moderately high rates of technical failure (19%), clinical failure (25%), and AEs (15%) during index drainage (PG creation). Among patients with CP with both technical and clinical success after index PG creation (n = 15), 100% definitive therapy was achieved and clinical outcomes were excellent (100% clinical success, 0% AEs).

EUS-guided pancreatic drainage: A steep learning curve

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

EUS-guided pancreatic drainage (EUS-PD) is an efficacious, acceptable risk option for patients with pancreatic duct obstruction who fail conventional ERCP. The aim of this study was to define the learning curve (LC) for EUS-PD.

METHODS

Consecutive patients undergoing EUS-PD by a single operator were included from a dedicated registry. Demographics, procedural info, adverse events, and follow-up data were collected. Nonlinear regression and cumulative sum (CUSUM) analyses were conducted for the LC.

RESULTS

Fifty-six patients were included (54% of male, with a mean age of 58 years). Technical success was achieved in 47 patients (84%). Stent placement was antegrade in 36 patients (77%) and retrograde in 11 (23%). Clinical success was achieved in 46/47 (98%) patients who achieved technical success. Adverse events were seen in 13 patients (6 of whom did not achieve technical success) and included bleeding requiring embolization (n = 5), bleeding treated with clips peri-procedurally (n = 1), pancreatitis (n = 5), and a pancreatic fluid collection drained via EUS-drainage (n = 2). The median procedural time was 80 min (range 49-159 min). The CUSUM chart showed that 80-min procedural time was achieved at the 27th procedure. Durations further reduced 40th procedure onward, reaching a plateau indicating proficiency (nonlinear regression P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

Endoscopists experienced in EUS-PD are expected to achieve a reduction in procedural time over successive cases, with efficiency reached at 80 min and a learning rate of 27 cases. Continued improvement is demonstrated with additional experience, with plateau indicating mastery suggested at the 40th case. EUS-PD is probably one of the hardest therapeutic endosonographic procedures to learn.

Six-year retrospective analysis of endoscopic ultrasonography-guided pancreatic ductal interventions at a tertiary referral center

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Endoscopic ultrasonography-guided pancreatic ductal intervention (EUS-PDI) serves as a rescue therapy in patients with failure of retrograde access to the pancreatic duct (PD) at the time of endoscopic retrograde pancreatography (ERP). We review our experience of this procedure.

METHODS

This is a retrospective study of patients who underwent EUS-PDI for an unsuccessful ERP and altered anatomy.

RESULTS

A total of 44 (65.9% male) patients underwent EUS-PDI with a mean age of 43.5 years, (range: 23-67). Transgastric rendezvous technique was carried out in 23/44 (52.3%), transgastric pancreaticogastrostomy in 18/44 (40.9%) and transduodenal pancreaticobulbostomy in 3/44 (6.8%). Overall technical and clinical success was seen in 88.6% (39/44) and 81.8% (36/44), respectively. Technical success of transgastric rendezvous was 95.6% and that of transgastric pancreaticogastrostomy was 77.8%. Two of seven patients with failure to access the PD had successfully undergone EUS-PD stenting at subsequent attempt. Ten immediate adverse events (AE) were noted which included abdominal pain (n = 4), pancreatitis (n = 2), fever (n = 2), minor bleeding (n = 1), and stripping of wire (n = 1). Delayed AE included stent blockage in 12/39 (30.8%) and spontaneous stent migration in 5/39 (12.8%) which were managed with stent exchange at follow up. The rendezvous technique was associated with fewer AE than transgastric pancreaticogastrostomy.

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopic ultrasonography-PDI is an effective treatment modality and salvage therapy in patients with unsuccessful ERP. Technical and clinical success seen with this study is comparable to studies conducted across the world. EUS-PDI needs to show cost-effectiveness in future studies.

Interventional endoscopic ultrasonography in patients with surgically altered anatomy: Techniques and literature review

There are various reconstruction techniques that are used after upper gastrointestinal surgery. In recent years, opportunities for endoscopic diagnosis and treatment have been increasing in patients undergoing gastrointestinal surgery. With the advent of interventional endoscopic ultrasound (IV-EUS), various procedures have been developed mainly for patients in whom endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography is difficult to carry out. Indications for such procedures are expanding. IV-EUS for surgically altered anatomy (SAA) includes EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration, biliary interventions (e.g. biliary drainage, treatment of bile duct stricture, removal of bile duct stones, and the rendezvous technique), and pancreatic interventions (e.g. rendezvous technique after Whipple surgery). In addition, there have been reports of various EUS-related procedures using a forward-viewing curved linear-array echoendoscope that are carried out for postoperative intestinal tract reconstruction. Although interventional EUS is a useful therapeutic procedure for SAA, there are still no dedicated devices, and standardization of the procedure is warranted.

Therapeutic EUS: New tools, new devices, new applications

Linear echoendoscopes with large instrument channels enable EUS-guided interventions in organs and anatomical spaces in proximity to the gastrointestinal tract. Novel devices and tools designed for EUS-guided transluminal interventions allow various new applications and improve the efficacy and safety of these procedures. New-generation biopsy needles provide higher histology rates and require less passes. Specially designed stents and stent insertion devices enable intra- and extra-hepatic bile and pancreatic duct stenting as well as gallbladder drainage. Currently, EUS-guided biliary drainage in obstructive jaundice due to malignant distal bile duct obstruction is feasible and safe when ERCP has failed. It might replace ERCP as first choice intervention in future. EUS-guided transmural stenting is regarded as the preferred intervention in the management of symptomatic peripancreatic fluid collections. Creating a new anastomosis between different organs such as gastrojejunostomy has also become possible with lumen-apposing stents. EUS-guided creation of a gastrogastrostomy is a promising novel technique to access the excluded stomach to facilitate conventional ERCP in patients with Roux-en-Y gastric bypass anatomy. The role of EUS in tumor ablation and targeted angiotherapy is also constantly expanding. In this review, we report on the newest developments of therapeutic EUS within the past 4 years.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided rendezvous in benign biliary or pancreatic disorders with a 22-gauge needle and a 0.018-inch guidewire

Background and study aims  The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of endoscopic ultrasound-guided rendezvous (EUS-RV) for benign biliary or pancreatic disorders with a 22-gauge needle and a 0.018-inch guidewire. Patients and methods  Patients who underwent EUS-RV after failed biliary or pancreatic cannulation for benign disorder were candidates for this study. For EUS-RV, a 22-gauge needle and a 0.018-inch guidewire were used. Inclusion criteria were unsuccessful biliary or pancreatic cannulation for therapeutic endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) with benign biliary or pancreatic obstruction. Exclusion criteria included malignant biliary or pancreatic obstruction, inaccessible papilla due to surgically altered upper gastrointestinal anatomy or duodenal stricture, and previous sphincterotomy and/or biliary stent placement. The primary outcome was the technical success rate of biliary or pancreatic cannulation, and the secondary outcome was the rate of adverse events. Results  Thirty-one patients were evaluated. The overall technical success rate was 80.6 % (81.5 % in biliary and 75 % in pancreatic cases). Adverse events (AEs) were identified in 12.9 % of patients, including one with biliary peritonitis, one with abdominal pain and one with severe pancreatitis plus pneumomediastinum. Only one of the AEs (3.3 %) was directly related to the rendezvous procedure. Conclusions  EUS-RV may be a safe and feasible salvage method for unsuccessful cannulation for benign disorders. Use of a 22-gauge needle with a 0.018-inch guidewire may be the first option for benign pathology.

Anterograde Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Pancreatic Duct Drainage: A Technical Review

The advancement of pancreatic endotherapy has increased the availability of minimally invasive endoscopic pancreatic ductal drainage techniques. In this regard, familiarity with endoscopic ultrasound-guided pancreatic duct drainage (EUS-PDD) is critical for treatment of obstructed pancreatic ductal systems, especially in nonsurgical candidates and in patients desiring a minimally invasive approach. Two distinct forms of EUS-PDD exist, viz. rendezvous-assisted endoscopic retrograde pancreatography (rendezvous-assisted ERP) and anterograde EUS-PDD. Anterograde EUS-PDD refers to transmural anterograde passage of a pancreatic drainage catheter or stent directly into the main pancreatic duct, through either the gastric or enteral wall. Rendezvous-assisted ERP should be attempted after failed conventional ERP, and anterograde EUS-PDD should be considered if rendezvous-assisted ERP fails or is not technically feasible. Common clinical scenarios that fulfil these conditions are chronic pancreatitis with high-grade main pancreatic duct obstruction, surgically altered anatomy with ductal/anastomotic obstruction, pancreas divisum, and disconnected pancreatic duct syndrome. The focus of this review article is anterograde EUS-PDD and its indications, technique, and outcomes. It also provides a summary of our own experience with this procedure, and a video demonstration of the technique.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided pancreatic duct drainage

Endoscopic transpapillary or transanastomotic pancreatic duct drainage (PD) is the mainstay of drainage in symptomatic pancreatic duct obstruction or leakage. However, transpapillary or transanastomotic PD can be technically difficult due to the tight stricture or surgically altered anatomy (SAA), and endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided PD (EUS-PD) is now increasingly used as an alternative technique. There are two approaches in EUS-PD: EUS-guided rendezvous (EUS-RV) and EUS-guided transmural drainage (EUS-TMD). In cases with normal anatomy, EUS-RV should be the first approach, whereas EUS-TMD can be selected in cases with SAA or duodenal obstruction. In our literature review, technical success and adverse event rates were 78.7% and 21.8%, respectively. The technical success rate of EUS-RV appeared lower than EUS-TMD due to the difficulty in guidewire passage. In future, development of dedicated devices and standardization of EUS-PD procedure are necessary.

Updates in Therapeutic Endoscopic Ultrasonography

The last decade has seen a dramatic rise in the possibilities of therapeutic endoscopic ultrasound (EUS). From EUS fine needle aspiration of cancerous lesion to pseudocyst drainage, it has now not only replaced some of the percutaneous techniques but has permitted to bypass all together laparoscopic approach for patient with altered anatomy or malignant gastric outlet obstruction. This review will emphasize the novel therapeutic EUS procedures added to our arsenal.

Management of delayed stenosis of pancreatico-enteric anastomosis following pancreatoduodenectomy

Stenosis of the pancreatico-enteric anastomosis following pancreatoduodenectomy (PD), a late post-operative complication that is seen mainly after PD for diseases with good prognosis, has been reported in less than 3% of cases in the literature. Most often asymptomatic, pancreatic-enteric anastomotic stenosis can lead to pancreatitis, pain or pancreatic insufficiency. Symptomatic stenosis is difficult to treat and its management is not standardized. Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography is the best investigation to confirm the diagnosis of stenosis. The Endoscopic UltraSonography (EUS) « rendezvous » technique, associating an endoscopic approach and EUS-guided puncture of the main pancreatic duct, has been available since 2010. Of note, however, the failure rate of the EUS series is as high as 25%, leading to repeat procedures. Surgical reconstruction of the anastomosis has been reported with good results in terms of morbidity. Surgical re-do of the pancreatico-enteric anastomosis for stenosis following PD carries a low risk of pancreatic fistula (around 5%) and an overall morbidity rate of around 20%.

Indications for Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Pancreatic Drainage: For Benign or Malignant Cases?

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Recurrent pancreatitis associated with pancreatic strictures requires treatment with endoscopic retrograde pancreatography (ERP), but it is sometimes technically unsuccessful. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided pancreatic drainage (EUS-PD) was developed as an alternative to a surgical approach after failed ERP; however, the indications for EUS-PD are unclear. In this study, we evaluated the outcomes of EUS-PD and established the indications for EUS-PD.

METHODS

A total of 15 patients had indications for EUS-PD for recurrent pancreatitis due to pancreatic strictures. There were eight patients with benign pancreatic strictures and seven with malignant pancreatic strictures. The success rate, adverse events, and long-term outcomes were evaluated.

RESULTS

The technical success rates of benign and malignant strictures were 75% (6/8) and 100% (7/7), respectively, and clinical success was achieved in 100% (6/6) and 87.5% of cases (6/7), respectively. Rendezvous procedures were performed in two patients with benign strictures. The adverse event (AE) rate was 26.7% (4/15) and included cases of peritonitis, bleeding, and stent migration. Reinterventions were performed in three patients with benign strictures and two with malignant strictures.

CONCLUSIONS

EUS-PD was an appropriate treatment for not only benign strictures but also malignant strictures with recurrent pancreatitis after failed ERP. However, the AE rate was high, and reinterventions were required in some cases during long-term follow-up. The indications for EUS-PD should be considered carefully, and careful follow-up is needed.

Evaluation of a new stent for EUS-guided pancreatic duct drainage: long-term follow-up outcome

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

 Endoscopic ultrasonography-guided pancreatic duct drainage (EUS-PD) has been reported as an alternative for failed conventional endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). However, there are few dedicated devices for EUS-PD. Recently, we have developed a new plastic stent dedicated to EUS-PD and have conducted a feasibility study to evaluate its efficacy. In the current study, we evaluated the long-term efficacy of this new plastic stent.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

 Thirty patients (61 ± 14.3 years old, 14 men) with acute recurrent pancreatitis caused by a stricture in the main pancreatic duct (MPD) or stenotic pancreatoenterostomy were treated at our institution using our recently developed 7Fr plastic stent between August 2013 and April 2017.

RESULTS

 The stent was placed successfully in all patients (30/30) and early clinical success was achieved in all of them. Early adverse events (AEs) occurred in seven patients (23.3 %), namely, self-limited abdominal pain (n = 5), mild pancreatitis (n = 1), and bleeding which required transcatheter arterial embolization (n = 1). Two patients died of primary disease and three were lost to follow-up. The remaining 25 patients were followed up after initial EUS-PD for a median of 23 months (range, 6 - 44 months). Twenty patients required regular stent exchange (3 times; range, 1 - 12 times). Spontaneous stent dislodgement was observed in six patients. Four patients wanted their stents removed 1 year after the initial intervention. Twelve patients (48 %) had regular stent exchange 1 year after the initial intervention. Three patients converted to standard transpapillary pancreatic duct stenting by conventional ERCP. Finally, nine patients (36 %) had complete stent removal either intentionally or by spontaneous dislodgement without any symptoms.

CONCLUSION

 The new plastic stent for EUS-PD was associated with not only short-term technical success but also long-term clinical success in the majority of patients evaluated in this study.

EUS-Guided Transluminal Interventions

The role of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) has transitioned from a diagnostic to a therapeutic one over the past 40 years. With the advent of curvilinear array echoendoscopes in the 1990s with an accessory channel, multiple tools and devices have been developed and used for a variety of transluminal interventions. EUS provides a viable option and is becoming the procedure of choice for many interventions, including bile and pancreatic duct drainage, guiding angiotherapy, pancreatic fluid collection management, gallbladder drainage, and creating a gastrojejunostomy. Although reports demonstrate the technical success of these interventions, there is tremendous study heterogeneity and a relative lack of controlled randomized trials, which may limit our understanding of their role and utility. Furthermore, adverse events are relatively common and occasionally severe. Despite the limitations, available data strongly indicate the efficacy of EUS interventions when performed by well-trained endosonographers in carefully selected patients and managed in a multidisciplinary setting.

Endoscopic Ultrasonography-Guided Techniques for Accessing and Draining the Biliary System and the Pancreatic Duct

When endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) fails to decompress the biliary system or the pancreatic duct, endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS)-guided biliary or pancreatic access and drainage can be used. Data show a high success rate and acceptable adverse event rate for EUS-guided biliary drainage. The outcomes of EUS-guided biliary drainage seem equivalent to percutaneous drainage and ERCP, whereas only retrospective studies are available for pancreatic duct drainage. In this article, revision of the technical and clinical status and the current evidence of interventional EUS-guided biliary and pancreatic duct access and drainage are presented.

Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Pancreatic Duct Intervention

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided pancreatic duct intervention (EUS-PDI) is an emerging endoscopic approach allowing access and intervention to the pancreatic duct (PD) for patients with failed endoscopic retrograde pancreatography (ERP) or patients with surgically altered anatomy. As opposed to biliary drainage for which percutaneous drainage is an alternative following failed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), the treatment options after failed ERP are very limited. Therefore, endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided access to the PD and options for subsequent drainage may play an important role as an alternative to surgical intervention. However, this approach is technically demanding with a high risk of complications, and should only be performed by highly experienced endoscopists. In this review, we describe an overview of the current endoscopic approaches, basic technical tips, and outcomes using these procedures.

An international multicenter study comparing EUS-guided pancreatic duct drainage with enteroscopy-assisted endoscopic retrograde pancreatography after Whipple surgery

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Endoscopic management of post-Whipple pancreatic adverse events (AEs) with enteroscopy-assisted endoscopic retrograde pancreatography (e-ERP) is associated with high failure rates. EUS-guided pancreatic duct drainage (EUS-PDD) has shown promising results; however, no comparative data have been done for these 2 modalities. The goal of this study is to compare EUS-PDD with e-ERP in terms of technical success (PDD through dilation/stent), clinical success (improvement/resolution of pancreatic-type symptoms), and AE rates in patients with post-Whipple anatomy.

METHODS

This is an international multicenter comparative retrospective study at 7 tertiary centers (2 United States, 2 European, 2 Asian, and 1 South American). All consecutive patients who underwent EUS-PDD or e-ERP between January 2010 and August 2015 were included.

RESULTS

In total, 66 patients (mean age, 57 years; 48% women) and 75 procedures were identified with 40 in EUS-PDD and 35 in e-ERP. Technical success was achieved in 92.5% of procedures in the EUS-PDD group compared with 20% of procedures in the e-ERP group (OR, 49.3; P < .001). Clinical success (per patient) was attained in 87.5% of procedures in the EUS-PDD group compared with 23.1% in the e-ERP group (OR, 23.3; P < .001). AEs occurred more commonly in the EUS-PDD group (35% vs 2.9%, P < .001). However, all AEs were rated as mild or moderate. Procedure time and length of stay were not significantly different between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

EUS-PDD is superior to e-ERP in post-Whipple anatomy in terms of efficacy with acceptable safety. As such, EUS-PDD should be considered as a potential first-line treatment in post-pancreaticoduodenectomy anatomy when necessary expertise is available.

EUS-guided pancreatic drainage for pancreatic strictures after failed ERCP: a multicenter international collaborative study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Endoscopic retrograde pancreatography (ERP) is considered first-line therapy for management of symptomatic pancreatic duct obstruction. Technical failure with ERP occurs when the main pancreatic duct cannot be cannulated. EUS-guided drainage of the pancreatic duct is a minimally invasive alternative to surgery for failed conventional ERP. We present an international, multicenter study on the safety and efficacy of EUS-guided pancreatic drainage (EUS-PD) for patients who fail conventional endoscopic therapy.

METHODS

Between January 2006 and December 2015, 80 patients underwent EUS-PD at 4 academic centers in 3 countries. Patient demographics, medical history, procedure data, and follow-up clinical data were collected. Technical success was defined as successful pancreatic duct drainage with stent placement. Clinical success was defined as resolution or improvement of symptoms or improvement on postprocedure imaging.

RESULTS

Eighty patients (62.5% men; mean age, 58.2 ± 15.5 years) were included. All patients had attempted ERP and/or extracorporeal lithotripsy if needed before EUS-PD. Technical success was achieved in 89% of patients (n = 71). Clinical success was achieved in 81% of patients overall (65/80) and in 92% of patients who achieved technical success (65/71). Immediate adverse events occurred in 20% of patients (n = 16) and delayed adverse events occurred in 11% of patients (n = 9).

CONCLUSIONS

With appropriate endoscopic expertise, EUS-PD offers a minimally invasive, more effective, and safer alternative to some surgical PD procedures. Prospective studies are needed to evaluate long-term outcomes. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT01522573.).

Challenges of Endoscopic Management of Pancreaticobiliary Complications in Surgically Altered Gastrointestinal Anatomy

Pancreaticobiliary complications following various surgical procedures, including liver transplantation, are not uncommon and are important causes of morbidity and mortality. Therapeutic endoscopy plays a substantial role in these patients and can help to avoid the need for reoperation. However, the endoscopic approach in patients with surgically altered gastrointestinal (GI) anatomy is technically challenging because of the difficulty in entering the enteral limb to reach the target orifice to manage pancreaticobiliary complications. Additional procedural complexity is due to the need of special devices and accessories to obtain successful cannulation and absence of an elevator in forward-viewing endoscopes, which is frequently used in this situation. Once bilioenteric anastomosis is reached, the technical success rates achieved in expert hands approach those of patients with intact GI anatomy. The success of endoscopic therapy in patients with surgically altered GI anatomy depends on multiple factors, including the expertise of the endoscopist, understanding of postoperative anatomic changes, and the availability of suitable scopes and accessories for endoscopic management. In this issue of Clinical Endoscopy, the focused review series deals with pancreatobiliary endoscopy in altered GI anatomy such as bilioenteric anastomosis and post-gastrectomy.

Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Pancreatobiliary Endoscopy in Surgically Altered Anatomy

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) has become the mainstay of therapy for pancreatobiliary diseases. While ERCP is safe and highly effective in the general population, the procedure remains challenging or impossible in patients with surgically altered anatomy (SAA). Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) allows transmural access to the bile or pancreatic duct (PD) prior to ductal drainage using ERCP-based techniques. Also known as endosonography-guided cholangiopancreatography (ESCP), the procedure provides multiple advantages over overtube-assisted enteroscopy ERCP or percutaneous or surgical approaches. However, the procedure should only be performed by endoscopists experienced in both EUS and ERCP and with the proper tools. In this review, various EUS-guided diagnostic and therapeutic drainage techniques in patients with SAA are examined. Detailed step-by-step procedural descriptions, technical tips, feasibility, and safety data are also discussed.

Endoscopic characteristics and usefulness of endoscopic dilatation of anastomotic stricture following pancreaticojejunostomy: case series and a review of the literature

The incidence of pancreatitis induced by anastomotic stricture following pancreaticodigestive tract anastomosis as a late-onset adverse event has been reported to be 3% or lower, but some cases repeatedly relapse and are difficult to treat. Endoscopic identification and treatment of the anastomotic site are considered to be difficult, and only a small number of cases have been reported. We present three cases with recurrent pancreatitis induced by anastomotic stricture following pancreaticojejunostomy applied after pancreaticoduodenectomy. We successfully identified the anastomotic site and performed endoscopic dilatation of the anastomotic stricture, and pancreatitis has not recurred. We characterized endoscopic features of the anastomotic site, understanding of which is essential to identify the site, and investigated useful techniques to identify the site and perform cannulation for pancreatography. Furthermore, we showed the safety and usefulness of endoscopic dilatation for anastomotic stricture following pancreaticojejunostomy according to our three cases and a review of the literature.

Endoscopic Ultrasound (EUS)-Guided Pancreatic Duct Drainage: The Basics of When and How to Perform EUS-Guided Pancreatic Duct Interventions

Despite the advances in endoscopy, endoscopic ultrasound-guided pancreatic duct drainage (EUS-PDD) remains a technically challenging procedure. Technical success rates are greater than 70%; however, the average rate of adverse events is nearly 20%, which increases to 55% when stent migration is included. Until recently, a significant difficulty with this technique was the absence of dedicated devices. Proper patient selection is of utmost importance, and EUS-PDD should be reserved for patients who have failed endoscopic retrograde pancreatography. Furthermore, EUS-PDD must be performed by experienced endoscopists who are familiar with the technique. The most common indications include chronic pancreatitis induced strictures and stones, disconnected pancreatic ducts, inaccessible ampulla, and post-surgical altered anatomy. This manuscript will review the accessories used, techniques employed, and published literature reporting outcomes as well as adverse events regarding EUS-PDD.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided interventions in special situations

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) was introduced in 1982 and has since become a popular advanced procedure for diagnosis and therapeutic intervention. Initially, EUS was most commonly used for the diagnosis of pancreatobiliary diseases and tissue acquisition. EUS was first used for guided cholangiography in 1996, followed by EUS-guided biliary drainage in 2001. Advancements in equipment and endoscopic accessories have led to an expansion of EUS-guided procedures, which now include EUS-guided drainage of intra-abdominal abscesses or collections, intra-vascular treatment of refractory variceal and nonvariceal bleeding, transmural pancreatic drainage, common bile duct stone clearance, enteral feeding tube placement and entero-enteric anastomosis. Patients with surgically altered upper gastrointestinal anatomies have greatly benefited from EUS also. This systematic review describes and discusses EUS procedures performed in uncommon diseases and conditions, as well as applications on more vulnerable patients such as young children and pregnant women. In these cases, routine approaches do not always apply, and thus may require the use of innovative and unconventional techniques. Increased knowledge of such special applications will help increase the success rates of these procedures and provide a foundation for additional advances and utilizations of the technique.

Endoscopic Ultrasound-Assisted Pancreaticobiliary Access

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is the primary approach to drain an obstructed pancreatic or biliary duct. Failed biliary drainage is traditionally referred for percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage or surgical bypass, which carry significantly higher morbidity and mortality rates compared with ERCP and transpapillary drainage. Endoscopic ultrasound provides a real-time imaging platform to access and deliver therapy to organs and tissues outside of the bowel lumen. The bile and pancreatic ducts can be directly accessed from the stomach and duodenum, offering an alternative to ERCP when this fails or is not feasible.

Uncommon complications of therapeutic endoscopic ultrasonography: What, why, and how to prevent

There is an increasing role for endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided interventions in the treatment of many conditions. Although it has been shown that these types of interventions are effective and safe, they continue to be considered only as alternative treatments in some situations. This is in part due to the occurrence of complications with these techniques, which can occur even when performed by experienced endosonographers. Although common complications have been described for many procedures, it is also crucial to be aware of uncommon complications. This review describes rare complications that have been reported with several EUS-guided interventions. EUS-guided biliary drainage is accepted as an alternative treatment for malignant biliary obstruction. Most of the uncommon complications related to this procedure involve stent malfunction, such as the migration or malposition of stents. Rare complications of EUS-guided pancreatic pseudocyst drainage can result from air embolism and infection. Finally, a range of uncommon complications has been reported for EUS-guided celiac plexus neurolysis, involving neural and vascular injuries that can be fatal. The goal of this review is to identify possible complications and promote an understanding of how they occur in order to increase general awareness of these adverse events with the hope that they can be avoided in the future.

Endoscopic ultrasound guided biliary and pancreatic duct interventions

When endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography fails to decompress the pancreatic or biliary system, alternative interventions are required. In this situation, endosonography guided cholangio-pancreatography (ESCP), percutaneous radiological therapy or surgery can be considered. Small case series reporting the initial experience with ESCP have been superseded by comprehensive reports of large cohorts. Although these reports are predominantly retrospective, they demonstrate that endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) guided biliary and pancreatic interventions are associated with high levels of technical and clinical success. The procedural complication rates are lower than those seen with percutaneous therapy or surgery. This article describes and discusses data published in the last five years relating to EUS-guided biliary and pancreatic intervention.