Gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2015
EUS-guided rendezvous for difficult biliary cannulation using a standardized algorithm: a multicenter prospective pilot study (with videos).
СтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеРандомизированное исследованиеVideo-Audio MediaНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Iwashita Takuji, Yasuda Ichiro, Mukai Tsuyoshi, Iwata Keisuke, Ando Nobuhiro, Doi Shinpei, Nakashima Masanori, Uemura Shinya, Mabuchi Masatoshi, Shimizu Masahito
Аннотация
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Biliary cannulation is necessary in therapeutic ERCP for biliary disorders. EUS-guided rendezvous (EUS-RV) can salvage failed cannulation. Our aim was to determine the safety and efficacy of EUS-RV by using a standardized algorithm with regard to the endoscope position in a prospective study.
METHODS: EUS-RV was attempted after failed cannulation in 20 patients. In a standardized approach, extrahepatic bile duct (EHBD) cannulation was preferentially attempted from the second portion of the duodenum (D2) followed by additional approaches to the EHBD from the duodenal bulb (D1) or to the intrahepatic bile duct from the stomach, if necessary. A guidewire was placed in an antegrade fashion into the duodenum. After the guidewire was placed, the endoscope was exchanged for a duodenoscope to complete the cannulation.
RESULTS: The bile duct was accessed from the D2 in 10 patients, but from the D1 in 5 patients and the stomach in 4 patients because of no dilation or tumor invasion at the distal EHBD. In the remaining patient, biliary puncture was not attempted due to the presence of collateral vessels. The guidewire was successfully manipulated in 80% of patients: 100% (10/10) with the D2 approach and 66.7% (6/9) with other approaches. The overall success rate was 80% (16/20). Failed EUS-RV was salvaged with a percutaneous approach in 2 patients, repeat ERCP in 1 patient, and conservative management in 1 patient. Minor adverse events occurred in 15% of patients (3/20).
CONCLUSIONS: EUS-RV is a safe and effective salvage method. Using EUS-RV to approach the EHBD from the D2 may improve success rates.
METHODS: EUS-RV was attempted after failed cannulation in 20 patients. In a standardized approach, extrahepatic bile duct (EHBD) cannulation was preferentially attempted from the second portion of the duodenum (D2) followed by additional approaches to the EHBD from the duodenal bulb (D1) or to the intrahepatic bile duct from the stomach, if necessary. A guidewire was placed in an antegrade fashion into the duodenum. After the guidewire was placed, the endoscope was exchanged for a duodenoscope to complete the cannulation.
RESULTS: The bile duct was accessed from the D2 in 10 patients, but from the D1 in 5 patients and the stomach in 4 patients because of no dilation or tumor invasion at the distal EHBD. In the remaining patient, biliary puncture was not attempted due to the presence of collateral vessels. The guidewire was successfully manipulated in 80% of patients: 100% (10/10) with the D2 approach and 66.7% (6/9) with other approaches. The overall success rate was 80% (16/20). Failed EUS-RV was salvaged with a percutaneous approach in 2 patients, repeat ERCP in 1 patient, and conservative management in 1 patient. Minor adverse events occurred in 15% of patients (3/20).
CONCLUSIONS: EUS-RV is a safe and effective salvage method. Using EUS-RV to approach the EHBD from the D2 may improve success rates.