Digestive endoscopy : official journal of the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society · 2026
Balloon Enteroscopy-Assisted ERCP and EUS-Guided Biliary Drainage for Malignant Biliary Obstruction in Patients With Surgically Altered Anatomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
СтатьяСистематический обзорМетаанализОбзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Itonaga Masahiro, Wan Ke, Takashi Tamura, Yamashita Yasunobu, Ashida Reiko, Kitano Masayuki
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the pooled outcomes and comparative evidence of balloon enteroscopy-assisted ERCP (BEA-ERCP) and EUS-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) for malignant biliary obstruction (MBO) in patients with surgically altered anatomy (SAA).
METHODS: PubMed, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library were searched up to January 2026. The primary outcome was the pooled technical success rate. Secondary outcomes included the clinical success rate, adverse event rate, recurrent biliary obstruction (RBO) rate, and mean procedure time. Subgroup analyses compared outcomes in studies directly comparing the two procedures. A random-effects model was used.
RESULTS: Thirteen studies were included, comprising nine studies investigating BEA-ERCP (394 patients) and seven investigating EUS-BD (206 patients), including three comparative studies. Pooled technical and clinical success rates were 75% and 72% for BEA-ERCP and 97% and 92% for EUS-BD, respectively. Pooled adverse event rates were 11% for BEA-ERCP and 17% for EUS-BD, and pooled RBO rates were 26% and 23%, respectively. In subgroup analyses of the three comparative studies, technical success rates (risk ratio [RR], 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.67-0.82) and clinical success rates (RR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.61-0.80) were significantly lower with BEA-ERCP than with EUS-BD, with no significant differences in adverse event rates, RBO rates, or procedural times.
CONCLUSION: In the three comparative studies, EUS-BD achieved higher technical and clinical success rates than BEA-ERCP for MBO in patients with SAA, with no significant difference in adverse events. These non-randomized findings are preliminary, and large-scale prospective comparative studies are warranted.
METHODS: PubMed, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library were searched up to January 2026. The primary outcome was the pooled technical success rate. Secondary outcomes included the clinical success rate, adverse event rate, recurrent biliary obstruction (RBO) rate, and mean procedure time. Subgroup analyses compared outcomes in studies directly comparing the two procedures. A random-effects model was used.
RESULTS: Thirteen studies were included, comprising nine studies investigating BEA-ERCP (394 patients) and seven investigating EUS-BD (206 patients), including three comparative studies. Pooled technical and clinical success rates were 75% and 72% for BEA-ERCP and 97% and 92% for EUS-BD, respectively. Pooled adverse event rates were 11% for BEA-ERCP and 17% for EUS-BD, and pooled RBO rates were 26% and 23%, respectively. In subgroup analyses of the three comparative studies, technical success rates (risk ratio [RR], 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.67-0.82) and clinical success rates (RR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.61-0.80) were significantly lower with BEA-ERCP than with EUS-BD, with no significant differences in adverse event rates, RBO rates, or procedural times.
CONCLUSION: In the three comparative studies, EUS-BD achieved higher technical and clinical success rates than BEA-ERCP for MBO in patients with SAA, with no significant difference in adverse events. These non-randomized findings are preliminary, and large-scale prospective comparative studies are warranted.