Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from https://link.springer.com/doi/10.1007/s00534-012-0569-8 below:

TG13 indications and techniques for biliary drainage in acute cholangitis (with videos)

The Tokyo Guidelines of 2007 (TG07) described the techniques and recommendations of biliary decompression in patients with acute cholangitis. TG07 recommended that endoscopic transpapillary biliary drainage should be selected as a first-choice therapy for acute cholangitis because it is associated with a low mortality rate and shorter duration of hospitalization. However, TG07 did not include the whole technique of standard endoscopic transpapillary biliary drainage, for example, biliary cannulation techniques including contrast medium-assisted cannulation, wire-guided cannulation, and treatment of duodenal major papilla using endoscopic papillary balloon dilation (EPBD). Furthermore, recently single- or double-balloon enteroscopy-assisted biliary drainage (BE-BD) and endoscopic ultrasonography-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) have been reported as special techniques for biliary drainage. Nevertheless, the updated Tokyo Guidelines (TG13) recommends that endoscopic drainage should be first-choice treatment for biliary decompression in patients with non-surgically altered anatomy and suggests that the choice of cannulation technique or drainage method (endoscopic naso-biliary drainage and stenting) depends on the endoscopist’s preference but EST should be selected rather than EPBD from the aspect of procedure-related complications. In terms of BE-BD and EUS-BD, although there are many reports on the their usefulness, they should be performed by skilled endoscopists in high-volume institutes, who are good at enteroscopy or echoendosonography, respectively, because procedures and devices are not yet established.

Free full-text articles and a mobile application of TG13 are available via http://www.jshbps.jp/en/guideline/tg13.html.

Acute cholangitis varies in severity, ranging from a mild form which can be treated by conservative therapy to a severe form which leads to a life-threatening state, e.g. shock state and altered sensorium. In particular, the severe form often results in mortality in the elderly [1–3]. Biliary drainage, which is the most essential therapy for acute cholangitis, is divided into three types, surgical, percutaneous transhepatic, and endoscopic drainage. Of these therapies, it is well known that surgical intervention leads to the highest mortality rate [1]. Recently, mortality due to acute cholangitis has decreased due to development of percutaneous transhepatic cholangial drainage (PTCD) [4] and endoscopic biliary drainage [5, 6]. Nevertheless, acute cholangitis can still be fatal unless it is treated in a timely way. The Tokyo Guidelines of 2007 (TG07) described the fundamental biliary drainage techniques for acute cholangitis [7]. Subsequently, new biliary drainage techniques for the therapy of acute cholangitis have been reported. Herein, we describe the indications and techniques of biliary drainage for acute cholangitis in the updated Tokyo Guidelines (TG13).

In TG13, biliary drainage is recommended for acute cholangitis regardless of degree of severity other than some cases of mild acute cholangitis in which antibiotics and general supportive care are effective.

Q1. What is the most preferable biliary drainage? endoscopic vs percutaneous vs surgical drainage for acute cholangitis?

Endoscopic drainage should be considered the first-choice drainage procedure because several studies have described it as less invasive than other drainage techniques [7–11].

Nowadays, percutaneous transhepatic cholangial drainage (PTCD), also known as percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD), has become the second choice of therapy for acute cholangitis following endoscopic drainage because of possible complications, including intraperitoneal hemorrhage and biliary peritonitis, and the need for a long hospital stay. However, PTCD can still be conducted in any of the following circumstances: (1) in patients with an inaccessible papilla due to upper GI tract obstruction, as in duodenal obstruction or surgically altered anatomy like Whipple resection or Roux-en-Y anastomosis, in which the passage of endoscope or endoscopic drainage is thought to be difficult or impossible; (2) when skilled pancreaticobiliary endoscopists are not available in the institution. Furthermore, even in patients with non-surgically altered anatomy, PTCD can be salvage therapy when conventional endoscopic drainage has failed. In general, coagulopathy is a relative contraindication. However, if there is no other life-saving method, PTCD would be indicated.

Before the prevalence of transabdominal ultrasonography, needle puncture of the bile duct was conducted under fluoroscopy [4]. Currently, needle puncture is safely performed under ultrasonography to avoid the intervening blood vessel [12]. Therefore, in the current PTCD procedure, operators should continuously observe the bile duct using ultrasonography regardless of the presence of dilation. The PTCD procedure is performed as follows, and as previously described [4]. Briefly, at first, ultrasonography-guided transhepatic puncture of the intrahepatic bile duct is conducted using an 18- to 22-G needle. After confirming backflow of bile, a guidewire is advanced into the bile duct. Finally, a 7- to 10-Fr catheter is placed in the bile duct under fluoroscopic control over the guidewire. Puncture using a small-gauge (22-G) needle is safer in patients without biliary dilation than with biliary dilation. According to the Quality Improvement Guidelines produced by American radiologists, the success rates of drainage are 86 % in patients with biliary dilation and 63 % in those without biliary dilation [12].

In benign diseases like bile duct stones, surgical drainage is extremely rare because of the prevalence of endoscopic drainage or PTCD for the therapy of acute cholangitis. However, in patients with acute cholangitis due to unresectable neoplasms like cancer of the pancreatic head, hepaticojejunostomy can be performed as bypass surgery only in limited patients without severe acute cholangitis. In particular, when periampullary neoplastic lesions like cancer of the pancreatic head or ampullary cancer, show both acute cholangitis and duodenal obstruction, double bypass surgery, hepaticojejunostomy and gastrojejunostomy, may be a rare choice.

Open drainage for decompression of the bile duct is performed as a surgical intervention. When surgical drainage in critically ill patients with bile duct stones is performed, prolonged operations should be avoided and simple procedures, such as T-tube placement without choledocholithotomy, are recommended [13].

Endoscopic transpapillary biliary drainage has become the gold standard technique for acute cholangitis, regardless of whether the pathology is benign or malignant, because it is a minimally invasive drainage method [4]. On the other hand, endoscopic drainage using a standard duodenoscope in patients with duodenal obstruction and surgically altered anatomy, like Roux-en-Y anastomosis, seems to be contraindicated.

The timing of endoscopic biliary drainage is very important for the clinical outcome. Khashab et al. [14] described that delayed (more than 72 h after administration) and unsuccessful ERCP are associated with worse outcomes in patients with acute cholangitis. Actually, in TG07, two thirds of outstanding pancreatobiliary surgeons and endoscopists supported the use of emergent or early drainage in patients with moderate or severe cholangitis [15].

Biliary cannulation should be conducted in advance of biliary drainage. Basically, there are two biliary cannulation techniques, namely contrast medium-guided cannulation (standard cannulation) and wire-guided cannulation.

Q2. What technique should be used for biliary cannulation? Standard cannulation or wire-guided cannulation?

Two meta-analyses of a randomized controlled trial (RCT) on the comparison between standard cannulation and wire-guided cannulation showed that wire-guided cannulation was able to increase the successful biliary cannulation rate and prevent post-ERCP pancreatitis [16, 17]. Recently, however, two RCTs have shown that there is no statistically significant difference between standard cannulation and wire-guided cannulation on the success rate of biliary cannulation or the prevention rate of post-ERCP pancreatitis [18, 19]. Therefore, the choice of techniques for biliary cannulation is still controversial.

When biliary cannulation using standard cannulation or wire-guided cannulation techniques fails, precutting, which means an incision of the papilla enabling the bile duct orifice to be opened for biliary cannulation, may be performed if an alternative method, like PTCD or surgical intervention, is not performed. In the main, two types of precutting methods are used. Needle knife precutting using needle-type sphincterotome is well known as a basic precutting method (Fig. 1a). Alternatively, several endoscopists prefer pancreatic sphincter precutting using a pull-type sphincterotome for biliary access (Fig. 1b). The use of precutting methods depends on the institution and endoscopist. It is known that precutting is likely to cause serious complications, such as acute pancreatitis and perforation, and therefore it should be performed only by skilled endoscopists [20, 21].

Precutting technique. a Needle knife precutting using needle-type sphincterotome. Bile duct orifice is opened by precutting. b Schema of pancreatic sphincter precutting. Cutting wire is bowed toward the bile duct direction

Endoscopic transpapillary biliary drainage is divided into two types: endoscopic naso-biliary drainage (ENBD) as an external drainage and endoscopic biliary stenting (EBS) as an internal drainage. Although, basically, both endoscopic biliary drainage types can be conducted in all acute cholangitis, they may be contraindicated in patients in whom the endoscope cannot reach the papilla due to GI tract obstruction or surgically altered anatomy, or in whom endoscopic procedures are inadequate because of critical illness. In particular, ENBD should be avoided in patients with poor compliance, who may remove the tube, and those with abnormalities of the nasal cavity causing difficulty in naso-biliary tube insertion.

In the case of biliary drainage for therapy of acute cholangitis, skillful endoscopic technique is mandatory because long and unsuccessful procedures may lead to serious complications in critical ill patients. Therefore, endoscopists who perform endoscopic biliary drainage in these patients, should already have a high success rate of biliary cannulation including the precutting technique.

Q3. What procedure should be used for endoscopic biliary drainage? ENBD or EBS?

Three comparative studies have shown that there is no statistically significant difference in technical success, clinical success, complications and mortality between ENBD and EBS, although a visual analogue scale was higher in the ENBD group than in the EBS group (Table 1) [22–24]. In consequence of these results, TG13 suggests that either drainage procedure can be selected according to the preference of the endoscopist. However, if ENBD is selected for the treatment of acute cholangitis, we should bear in mind that if the patient has discomfort from the transnasal tube placement, they are likely to remove the tube themselves, especially elderly patients.

One RCT has revealed that biliary drainage is not mandatory after endoscopic clearance of the common bile duct in patients with choledocholithiasis-induced cholangitis (level B) [25].

ENBD procedures are described in detail in TG07 [4]. Briefly, after selective biliary cannulation, a 5-Fr to 7-Fr tube is placed in the bile duct as an external drainage over the guidewire (Fig. 2a).

Endoscopic biliary drainage. a Endoscopic naso-biliary drainage. b Endoscopic biliary stenting. A 7-Fr plastic stent is placed after performing EST and pus comes from the bile duct

EBS procedures is also described in the previous guideline [4]. In brief, after selective biliary cannulation, a 7- to 10-Fr plastic stent is placed in the bile duct as an internal drainage over the guidewire. There are two different stent shapes, a straight type with a single flap with a sidehole (Amsterdam type) (Fig. 2b) or radial flaps without a sidehole (Tannenbaum type) on both sides, and a double pig-tail type to prevent inward and outward stent migration. There is no comparative study between straight type and pig-tail type stents. Therefore, either stent can be selected according to the preference of the endoscopist.

EST technique is usually used for stone removal and, at times, prevention of the occlusion of the pancreatic duct orifice by placement of a large-bore biliary stent (more than 10-Fr or a self-expandable metal stent).

Q4. Is EST necessary in endoscopic biliary drainage?

As TG07 described, an additional EST is not necessary in acute cholangitis as follows: (1) additional EST causes complications such as hemorrhage [26, 27]; (2) post-EST hemorrhage is one of the risk factors of acute cholangitis [20]. In particular, the use of EST in patients with severe (grade III) disease complicated by coagulopathy should be avoided. Nevertheless, EST has some advantages as follows: (1) it provides not only drainage but also clearance of bile duct stones at a single session in patients with choledocholithiasis (not complicated by severe cholangitis). (2) Precutting can allow bile duct access, providing biliary drainage in patients in whom selective biliary cannulation is impossible using the standard cannulation technique. In particular, stone removal in one session can shorten the hospital stay. Therefore, TG13 suggests that addition of EST should be determined according to the patient’s condition and the operator’s skill.

The detail of EST procedures is described in TG07 [4]. Briefly, after selective biliary cannulation with or without a guidewire, a pull-type sphincterotomy incision is performed below the transverse fold (Fig. 3). When the transverse fold is not present, the superior margin of the papilla bulge is used as a landmark to determine the length of the sphincterotomy (supplement video 4). An electrosurgical generator with a controlled cutting system (Endocut mode, ICC200, VIO300, ERBE Elektromedizin GmbH, Tubingen, Germany) is used for EST; the push-type is used for EST in patients with Billroth II gastrectomy or Roux-en-Y anastomosis. Only a limited incision is necessary in EST for drainage purposes using a large-bore stent, unlike that for stone removal [10]. Endoscopists should remember that EST may cause acute pancreatitis or cholangitis, which may become life-threatening when severe [20].

Endoscopic sphincterotomy. A pull-type sphincterotomy incision was performed below the transverse fold

The EPBD procedure is usually used instead of EST for removal of bile duct stones [28]. Until now, there has been no comparative study on the use of EPBD during biliary drainage to treat acute cholangitis due to bile duct stones. EPBD, like EST, has the advantage of reducing the number of therapeutic sessions and shortening the hospital stay in patients with acute cholangitis caused by bile duct stones. One systematic review revealed that EPBD is statistically less successful for stone removal, requires higher rates of mechanical lithotripsy, and carries a higher risk of pancreatitis, although it also has statistically significant lower rates of bleeding [29]. Thus, TG13 suggests that EPBD appears to be useful for treatment in patients who have coagulopathy and acute cholangitis caused by a small stone.

On the other hand, theoretically, since the aim of EPBD is to preserve the function of the sphincter of Oddi, EPBD alone without biliary drainage is contraindicated for the therapy of acute cholangitis. In addition, EPBD should be avoided in patients with biliary pancreatitis.

After selective biliary cannulation, a small balloon up to 8-mm in diameter, depending on the diameters of the bile duct and the stone, is advanced into the bile duct across the papilla. Then, the sphincter of Oddi is gradually dilated by inflation of the balloon until the waist of the balloon disappears. Then, clearance of the bile duct stone is conducted using a basket catheter and balloon catheter.

Recently, several new techniques of endoscopic biliary drainage have been developed.

ERCP in patients with surgically altered anatomy can be challenging. In general, Roux-en-Y anastomosis has been thought to preclude endoscopic access for ERCP because of the extensive lengths of the efferent and afferent limbs that must be traversed to reach the major papilla or hepaticojejunostomy site. Recently, single balloon enteroscopy (SBE) and double balloon enteroscopy (DBE) have enabled successful ERCP to be performed in patients with such surgically altered anatomy. Several investigators have reported various success rates (40 to 95 %) with adverse events rates below 5 % (Tables 2, 3) [30–42]. However, since this technique may be unsuccessful and time-consuming, its indication should be cautiously decided. Although ideal operators are those who are skilled in both balloon enteroscopy and ERCP, in some institutions, GI endoscopists advance an endoscope to the papilla or anastomotic site and then pancreaticobiliary endoscopists perform ERCP. Therefore, if the operators are not good at this technique, therapy using balloon enteroscopy should be avoided.

The SBE and DBE balloon system consists of a video enteroscope (XSIF-Q260Y; Olympus Medical Systems, Tokyo, Japan and long-type DBE: EN-450T5, short-type DBE: EC-450B15/EI-530B, Fujifilm Co., Ltd., Saitama, Japan), a sliding tube with a balloon and a balloon controller. The DBE has a balloon at the tip of the endoscope in addition to the balloon of the overtube. Endoscopes are advanced to the papilla or anastomotic site using the pushing and pulling techniques (Fig. 4a, b). An injection catheter and a tapered catheter are used for initial cannulation. First, 0.025–0.035-inch guidewires are inserted into the bile duct. Finally, 5–8.5-Fr naso-biliary drainage catheters and self-expandable metallic stents are placed into the bile duct for biliary decompression. In cases requiring an endoscopic sphincterotomy, a sphincterotome and needle knife are advanced into the bile duct over or alongside the guidewire. In cases of EPBD, a conventional dilation catheter is used for the papilla or hepaticojejunostomy site. When selective cannulation is not possible, a needle knife is used for pre-cutting. A basket catheter, retrieval balloon catheter, and/or mechanical lithotriptor are used for removal of stones.

Balloon enteroscope-assisted ERCP. a ERCP in esophagojejunostomy with Roux-en-Y patient. b ERCP in hepaticojejunostomy with Roux-en-Y patient

Recently, endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS)-guided biliary drainage has been reported as a salvage therapy when standard endoscopic drainage has failed [43–54]. Since the technique and devices of this procedure are not yet established and there is no dedicated device for this procedure, it should be conducted only in selected patients in whom standard biliary drainage by means of ERCP or PTCD has failed or is contraindicated for various reasons like considerable ascites. There are two methods of approach in EUS-guided biliary drainage: (1) EUS-guided intrahepatic bile duct drainage (Fig. 5a) by a transesophageal, transgastric or transjejunal approach; (2) EUS-guided extrahepatic bile duct drainage (Fig. 5b) by a transduodenal or transgastric approach. The choice of drainage route depends on the presence of a gastric outlet obstruction and the stricture site of the bile duct. Several published data on EUS-guided intrahepatic bile duct drainage and extrahepatic bile duct drainage show that the success rate is high (95 %), with 93–100 % (intention-to-treat) response rates (Table 4) [43–54]. Most of the reported cases of adverse events were pneumoperitonitis but there was no serious adverse event. However, since the procedure is not yet established, it should be conducted by endoscopists skilled in both echoendosonography and ERCP.

EUS-guided biliary approaches. a EUS-guided intrahepatic bile duct approach. b EUS-guided extrahepatic bile duct approach

Theoretically, the intrahepatic bile duct and liver, including the extrahepatic bile duct does not adhere to the GI tract. Therefore, there is a possibility of bile leakage during the procedure; particularly, if the procedure fails, serious bile peritonitis can occur. A needle knife (Zimmon papillotomy knife, or Cystotome, Wilson-Cook, Winston-Salem, NC) catheter using electrocautery (EndoCut ICC200, VIO300D, ERBE Elektromedizin GmbH, Tübingen, Germany), or a 19-gauge needle (EchoTip, Wilson-Cook), is advanced into the bile duct under EUS visualization after confirming the absence of intervening blood vessels to avoid bleeding. After the stylet is removed, bile is aspirated and then contrast medium is injected into the gallbladder for cholecystography, then a 450 cm long, 0.025- or 0.035-inch guidewire is advanced into the outer sheath. If necessary, a biliary catheter for dilation (Soehendra Biliary Dilator, Wilson-Cook), papillary balloon dilation catheter (Maxpass, Olympus Medical Systems), and electrical cautery needle, are used for dilation of the hepaticoenterostomy site and choledochoenterostomy site. Finally, a 7-Fr plastic stent or a self-expandable metal stent are advanced into the bile duct.

1. Reynolds BM, Dargan EL. Acute obstructive cholangitis. A distinct syndrome. Ann Surg. 1959;150:299–303.

   Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

2. O’Connor MJ, Schwartz ML, McQuarrie DG, Sumer HW. Acute bacterial cholangitis: an analysis of clinical manifestation. Arch Surg. 1982;117:437–41.

   Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

3. Welch JP, Donaldson GA. The urgency of diagnosis and surgical treatment of acute suppurative cholangitis. Am J Surg. 1976;131:527–32.

   Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

4. Takada T, Hanyu F, Kobayashi S, Uchida Y. Percutaneous transhepatic cholangial drainage: direct approach under fluoroscopic control. J Surg Oncol. 1976;8:83–97.

   Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

5. Nagai N, Toki F, Oi I, Suzuki H, Kozu T. Continuous endoscopic pancreatocholedochal catheterization. Gastrointest Endosc. 1976;23:78–81.

   Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

6. Sohendra N, Reynders-Frederix V. Palliative bile duct drainage. A new endoscopic method of introducing a transpapillary drain. Endoscopy. 1980;12:8–11.

   Article  Google Scholar 

7. Tsuyuguchi T, Takada T, Kawarada Y, Nimura Y, Wada K, Nagino M, et al. Techniques of biliary drainage for acute cholangitis: Tokyo Guidelines. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg. 2007;14(1):35–45. (clinical practice guidelines:CPGs).

   Google Scholar 

8. Lai EC, Mok FP, Tan ES, Lo CM, Fan ST, You KT, et al. Endoscopic biliary drainage for severe acute cholangitis. N Engl J Med. 1992;24:1582–6.

   Article  Google Scholar 

9. Leung JW, Chung SC, Sung JJ, Banez VP, Li AK. Urgent endoscopic drainage for acute suppurative cholangitis. Lancet. 1989;10:1307–9.

   Article  Google Scholar 

10. Boender J, Nix GA, de Ridder MA, Dees J, Schutte HE, van Buuren HF, et al. Endoscopic sphincterotomy and biliary drainage in patients with cholangitis due to common bile duct stones. Am J Gastroenterol. 1995;90:233–8.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

11. Lau JY, Chung SC, Leung JW, Ling TK, Yung MY, Li AK. Endoscopic drainage aborts endotoxaemia in acute cholangitis. Br J Surg. 1996;83:181–4.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

12. Saad WE, Wallace MJ, Wojak JC, Kundu S, Cardella JF. Quality improvement guidelines for percutaneous transhepatic cholangiography, biliary drainage, and percutaneous cholecystostomy. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2010;21:789–95.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

13. Saltzstein EC, Peacock JB, Mercer LC. Early operation for acute biliary tract stone disease. Surgery. 1983;94:704–8.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

14. Khashab MA, Tariq A, Tariq U, Kim K, Ponor L, Lennon AM, et al. Delayed and unsuccessful endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography are associated with worse outcomes in patients with acute cholangitis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2012;10:1157–61

    Google Scholar 

15. Nagino M, Takada T, Kawarada Y, Nimura Y, Yamashita Y, Tsuyuguchi T, et al. Methods and timing of biliary drainage for acute cholangitis: Tokyo Guidelines. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg. 2007;14(1):68–77. (CPGs)

    Google Scholar 

16. Cheung J, Tsoi KK, Quan WL, Lau JY, Sung JJ. Guidewire versus conventional contrast cannulation of the common bile duct for the prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastrointest Endosc. 2009;70:1211–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

17. Cennamo V, Fuccio L, Zagari RM, Eusebi LH, Ceroni L, Laterza L, et al. Can a wire-guided cannulation technique increase bile duct cannulation rate and prevent post-ERCP pancreatitis?: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Am J Gastroenterol. 2009;104:2343–50.

    Google Scholar 

18. Manbu T, Ukita T, Shigoka H, Omuta S, Maetani I. Wire-guided selective cannulation of the bile duct with a sphincterotome: a prospective randomized comparative study with standard method. Scand J Gastroenterol. 2011;46:109–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

19. Kawakami H, Maguchi H, Mukai T, Hayashi T, Sasaki T, Isayama H, et al. A multicenter, prospective, randomized study of selective bile duct cannulation performed by multiple endoscopists: the BIDMEN study. Gastrointest Endosc 2012;75:362–72.

    Google Scholar 

20. Freeman ML, Nelson DB, Sherman S, Haber GB, Herman ME, Dorsher PJ, et al. Complications of endoscopic biliary sphincterotomy. N Engl J Med. 1996;335:909–18.

    Google Scholar 

21. Testoni PA, Mariani A, Giussani A, Vailati C, Masci E, Macarri G, et al. Risk factors for post-ERCP pancreatitis in high- and low-volume centers and among expert and non-expert operators: a prospective multicenter study. Am J Gastroenterol. 2010;105:1753–61.

    Google Scholar 

22. Lee DW, Chan AC, Lam YH, Ng EK, Lau JY, Law BK, et al. Biliary decompression by nasobiliary catheter or biliary stent in acute suppurative cholangitis: a prospective randomized trial. Gastrointest Endosc. 2002;56:361–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

23. Sharma BC, Kumar R, Agarwal N, Sarin SK. Endoscopic biliary drainage by nasobiliary drain or by stent placement in patients with acute cholangitis. Endoscopy. 2005;37:439–43.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

24. Park SY, Park CH, Cho SB, Yoon KW, Lee WS, Kim HS, et al. The safety and effectiveness of endoscopic biliary decompression by plastic stent placement in acute suppurative cholangitis compared with nasobiliary drainage. Gastrointest Endosc. 2008;68:1076–80.

    Google Scholar 

25. Lee JK, Lee SH, Kang BK, Kim JH, Koh MS, Yang CH, et al. Is it necessary to insert a nasobiliary drainage tube routinely after endoscopic clearance of the common bile duct in patients with choledocholithiasis-induced cholangitis? A prospective, randomized trial. Gastrointest Endosc. 2010;71:105–10.

    Google Scholar 

26. Sugiyama M, Atomi Y. The benefits of endoscopic nasobiliary drainage without sphincterotomy for acute cholangitis. Am J Gastroenterol. 1998;93:2065–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

27. Hui CK, Lai KC, Yuen MF, Ng M, Chan CK, Hu W, et al. Does the addition of endoscopic sphincterotomy to stent insertion improve drainage of the bile duct in acute suppurative cholangitis? Gastrointest Endosc. 2003;58:500–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

28. Komatsu Y, Kawabe T, Toda N, Ohashi M, Isayama M, Tateishi K, et al. Endoscopic papillary balloon dilation for the management of common bile duct stones: experience of 226 cases. Endoscopy. 1998;30:12–7.

    Google Scholar 

29. Weinberg BM, Shindy W, Lo S. Endoscopic balloon sphincter dilation (sphincteroplasty) versus sphincterotomy for common bile duct stones. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006;(4):CD004890.

30. Itoi T, Ishii K, Sofuni A, Itokawa F, Tsuchiya T, Kurihara T, et al. Single balloon enteroscopy-assisted ERCP in 206 patients with Billroth II gastrectomy or Roux-en-Y anastomosis (with video). Am J Gastroenterol. 2010;105:93–9.

    Google Scholar 

31. Saleem A, Baron TH, Gostout C, Topazian MD, Levy MJ, Petersen BT, et al. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography using a single-balloon enteroscope in patients with altered Roux-en-Y anatomy. Endoscopy. 2010;42:656–60.

    Google Scholar 

32. Wang AY, Sauer BG, Behm BW, Ramanath M, Cox DG, Ellen KL, et al. Single-balloon enteroscopy effectively enables diagnostic and therapeutic retrograde cholangiography in patients with surgically altered anatomy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2010;71:641–9.

    Google Scholar 

33. Haruta H, Yamamoto H, Mizuta K, Kita Y, Uno T, Egami S, et al. A case of successful enteroscopic balloon dilation for late anastomotic stricture of choledochoduodenostomy after living donor liver transplantation. Liver Transpl. 2005;11:1608–10.

    Google Scholar 

34. Mehdizadeh S, Ross A, Gerson L, Leighton J, Chen A, Schembre D, et al. What is the learning curve associated with double-balloon enteroscopy? Technical details and early experience in 6 U.S. teriary care centers. Gastrointest Endosc. 2006;64:740–50.

    Google Scholar 

35. Emmett DS, Mallat DB. Double-balloon ERCP in patients who have undergone Roux-en-Y surgery: a case series. Gastrointest Endosc. 2007;66:1038–41.

    Google Scholar 

36. Aabakken L, Bretthauer M, Line PD. Double-balloon enteroscopy for endoscopic retrograde cholangiography in patients with a Roux-en-Y anastomosis. Endoscopy. 2007;39:1068–71.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

37. Masser C, Lenze F, Bokemeyer M, Ullerich H, Domagk D, Bruewer M, et al. Double balloon enteroscopy: a useful tool for diagnostic and therapeutic procedures in the pancreaticobiliary system. Am J Gastroenterol. 2008;103:894–900.

    Google Scholar 

38. Kuga R, Furuya CK Jr, Hondo FY, Ide E, Ishioka S, Sakai P. ERCP using double-balloon enteroscopy in patients with Roux-en-Y anatomy. Dig Dis. 2008;26:330–5.

    Google Scholar 

39. Pohl J, May A, Aschmoeneit I, Ell C. Double-balloon endoscopy for retrograde cholangiography in patients with choledochojejunostomy and Roux-en-Y reconstruction [Germany with English abstract]. Z Gastroenterol. 2009;47:215–9.

    Google Scholar 

40. Shimatani M, Matsushita M, Takaoka M, Koyabu M, Ikeura T, Kato K, et al. Effective “short”double-balloon enteroscope for diagnostic and therapeutic ERCP in patients with altered gastrointestinal anatomy: a large case series. Endoscopy. 2009;41:849–54.

    Google Scholar 

41. Tsujino T, Yamada A, Isayama H, et al. Experiences of biliary interventions using short double-balloon enteroscopy in patients with Roux-en-Y anastomosis or hepaticojejunostomy. Dig Endosc. 2010;22:211–216.

    Google Scholar 

42. Itoi T, Ishii K, Sofuni A, Itokawa F, Tsuchiya T, Kurihara T, et al. Long and short type double-balloon enteroscopy-assisted therapeutic ERCP for intact papilla in patients with a Roux-en-Y anastomosis. Surg Endosc. 2011 25:713–21.

    Google Scholar 

43. Burmester E, Niehaus J, Leineweber T, Huetteroth T. EUS-cholangio-drainage of the bile duct: report of 4 cases. Gastrointest Endosc. 2003;57:246–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

44. Giovannini M, Dotti M, Bories E, Moutardier V, Pesenti C, Danisi C, et al. Hepaticogastrostomy by echo-endoscopy as a palliative treatment in a patient with metastatic biliary obstruction. Endoscopy. 2003;35:1076–8.

    Google Scholar 

45. Kahaleh M, Hernandez AJ, Tokar J, Adams RB, Shami VM, Yeaton P. Interventional EUS-guided cholangiography: evaluation of a technique in evolution. Gastrointest Endosc. 2006;64:52–9.

    Google Scholar 

46. Artifon EL, Chaves DM, Ishioka S, Souza TF, Matuguma SE, Sakai P. Echoguided hepatico-gastrostomy: a case report. Clinics (Sao Paulo). 2007;62:799–802.

47. Bories E, Pesenti C, Caillol F, Lopes C, Giovannini M. Transgastric endoscopic ultrasonography-guided biliary drainage: results of a pilot study. Endoscopy. 2007;39:287–91.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

48. Park do H, Koo JE, Oh J, Lee YH, Moon SH, Lee SS, et al. EUS-guided biliary drainage with one-step placement of a fully covered metal stent for malignant biliary obstruction: a prospective feasibility study. Am J Gastroenterol. 2009;104:2168–74

    Google Scholar 

49. Horaguchi J, Fujita N, Noda Y, Kobayashi G, Ito K, Obana T, et al. Endosonography-guided biliary drainage in cases with difficult transpapillary endoscopic biliary drainage. Dig Endosc. 2009;21:239–44.

    Google Scholar 

50. Giovannini M, Moutardier V, Pesenti C, Bories E, Lelong B, Delpero JR. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided bilioduodenal anastomosis: a new technique for biliary drainage. Endoscopy. 2001;33:898–900.

    Google Scholar 

51. Yamao K, Bhatia V, Mizuno N, Sawaki A, Ishikawa H, Tajika M, et al. EUS-guided choledochoduodenostomy for palliative biliary drainage in patients with malignant biliary obstruction: results of long-term follow-up. Endoscopy. 2008;40:340–2.

    Google Scholar 

52. Itoi T, Itokawa F, Sofuni A, Kurihara T, Tsuchiya T, Ishii K, et al. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided choledochoduodenostomy in patients with failed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. World J Gastroenterol. 2008;14:6078–82.

    Google Scholar 

53. Binmoeller KF, Nguyen-Tang T. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided anterograde cholangiopancreatography. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci. 2011;18:319–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

54. Hara K, Yamao K, Niwa Y, Sawaki A, Mizuno N, Hijioka S, et al. Prospective clinical study of EUS-guided choledochoduodenostomy for malignant lower biliary tract obstruction. Am J Gastroenterol. 2011;106:1239–45.

    Google Scholar 

55. Itoi T, Isayama H, Sofuni A, Itokawa F, Kurihara T, Tsuchiya T, et al. Stent selection and tips of placement technique of EUS-guided biliary drainage: trans-duodenal and trans-gastric stenting. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci. 2011;18:664–72.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

We are indebted to Professor J. Patrick Barron, Chairman of the Department of International Medical Communications at Tokyo Medical University, for his editorial review of the English manuscript.

None.

1. Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Tokyo Medical University, 6-7-1 Nishishinjuku, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo, 160-0023, Japan

   Takao Itoi

2. Department of Medicine and Clinical Oncology, Graduate School of Medicine, Chiba University, Chiba, Japan

   Toshio Tsuyuguchi & Fumihiko Miura

3. Department of Surgery, Teikyo University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan

   Tadahiro Takada

4. Section of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, USA

   Steven M. Strasberg

5. Department of Surgery, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, USA

   Henry A. Pitt

6. Department of Internal Medicine, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan, Seoul, Korea

   Myung-Hwan Kim

7. General and HPB Surgery, Loreto Nuovo Hospital, Naples, Italy

   Giulio Belli

8. Department of Emergency and Critical Care Medicine, Ichinomiya Municipal Hospital, Ichinomiya, Japan

   Toshihiko Mayumi

9. Clinical Research Center Kaken Hospital, International University of Health and Welfare, Ichikawa, Japan

   Masahiro Yoshida

10. Department of Surgery, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany

    Markus W. Büchler

11. Department of Surgery, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Dirk J. Gouma

12. Clinical Surgery, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK

    O. James Garden

13. Department of Surgical Oncology, Lilavati Hospital and Research Centre, Mumbai, India

    Palepu Jagannath

14. Center for Clinical Infectious Diseases, Jichi Medical University, Tochigi, Japan

    Harumi Gomi

15. Department of Surgical Oncology and Gastroenterological Surgery, Sapporo Medical University School of Medicine, Sapporo, Japan

    Yasuyuki Kimura

16. Department of Surgery, Institute of Gastroenterology, Tokyo Women’s Medical University, Tokyo, Japan

    Ryota Higuchi

1. Takao Itoi
2. Toshio Tsuyuguchi
3. Tadahiro Takada
4. Steven M. Strasberg
5. Henry A. Pitt
6. Myung-Hwan Kim
7. Giulio Belli
8. Toshihiko Mayumi
9. Masahiro Yoshida
10. Fumihiko Miura
11. Markus W. Büchler
12. Dirk J. Gouma
13. O. James Garden
14. Palepu Jagannath
15. Harumi Gomi
16. Yasuyuki Kimura
17. Ryota Higuchi

Correspondence to Takao Itoi.

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (MPG 26576 kb)

Supplementary material 2 (MPG 19092 kb)

Supplementary material 3 (MPG 10218 kb)

Supplementary material 4 (MPG 10236 kb)

Supplementary material 5 (MPG 13912 kb)

Supplementary material 6 (MPG 13298 kb)

Supplementary material 7 (MPG 12522 kb)

Itoi, T., Tsuyuguchi, T., Takada, T. et al. TG13 indications and techniques for biliary drainage in acute cholangitis (with videos). J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci 20, 71–80 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00534-012-0569-8

Download citation

• Published: 11 January 2013

• Issue Date: January 2013

• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00534-012-0569-8

RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue

Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo

HTML: 3.2 | Encoding: UTF-8 | Version: 0.7.4