Comparing endoscopic ultrasound‐guided antegrade treatment and balloon endoscopy‐assisted endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in the management of bile duct stones in patients with surgically altered anatomy: A retrospective cohort study

Abstract

AbstractBackgroundEndoscopic ultrasound‐guided antegrade treatment (EUS‐AG) and balloon endoscopy‐assisted endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (BE‐ERCP) have emerged as useful procedures for managing bile duct stones (BDS) in patients with surgically altered anatomy. However, the comparison between these two procedures has not been well studied.The aim of our study was to compare the clinical outcomes of EUS‐AG and BE‐ERCP for managing BDS in patients with surgically altered anatomy.MethodsThe database was retrospectively evaluated at two tertiary care centers to identify patients with surgically altered anatomy who underwent either EUS‐AG or BE‐ERCP for BDS. Clinical outcomes were compared between the procedures. The success rate of each procedure was evaluated in three steps: endoscopic approach, biliary access, and stone extraction.ResultsAmong the 119 identified patients, 23 had EUS‐AG, and 96 had BE‐ERCP. The overall technical success rates of EUS‐AG and BE‐ERCP were 65.2% (15/23) and 69.8% (67/96), respectively (P = .80). The comparison of each step between the procedures EUS‐AG versus BE‐ERCP was as follows: endoscopic approach, 100% (23/23) versus 88.5% (85/96) (P = .11); biliary access, 73.9% (17/23) versus 80.0% (68/85) (P = .57); stone extraction, 88.2% (15/17) versus 98.5% (67/68) (P = .10). The overall adverse event rate was 17.4% (4/23) versus 7.3% (7/96) (P = .22).ConclusionsBoth EUS‐AG and BE‐ERCP are effective and relatively safe procedures in the management of BDS in patients with surgically altered anatomy. The challenging steps of each procedure might be different, which could help decide which one to use to manage BDS in patients with surgically altered anatomy.