METHODS: The 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.
RESULTS: Among 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).
CONCLUSIONS: Both 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.
目的:比较EUS-AG和BE-ERCP治疗手术解剖改变患者BDS的临床结果。
方法:在两个三级护理中心对数据库进行了回顾性评估,以确定因手术解剖结构改变而接受EUS-AG或BE-ERCP治疗BDS的患者。
结果:在119名确定的患者中,
结论:EUS-AG和BE-ERCP在手术解剖改变的患者BDS治疗中都是有效且相对安全的方法。