Endoscopic ultrasound-guided choledochoduodenostomy (EUS-CDS) with lumen apposing metal stent is emerging both as a rescue strategy and a primary treatment for distal malignant biliary obstruction. The large-scale diffusion of the procedure and improved overall survival of patients with pancreatobiliary neoplasms is resulting in a growing population of long-term EUS-CDS lumen apposing metal stent carriers. Recent studies have reported a need for reintervention during follow-up as high as 55%, and the Leuven-Amsterdam-Milan Study Group classification has been developed, identifying five mechanisms of stent dysfunction and 11 possible rescue strategies aimed at restoring biliary drainage. This illustrated technical review aims to further dissect the recent classification through a comprehensive analysis of nine illustrative cases, offering insights into the pathophysiology underlying dysfunction and clinical reasoning behind rescue interventions, as well as technical considerations and practical tips and tricks. By exploring mechanisms of dysfunction, this review also assists clinicians in selecting the ideal candidates for EUS-CDS while identifying patients deemed high risk for dysfunction or clinical failure.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to estimate the safety and efficacy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided choledochoduodenostomy (EUS-CDS) and endoscopic ultrasound-guided hepaticogastrostomy (EUS-HGS) for malignant biliary obstruction.
METHODS: We conducted a literature search using PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Studies that compared EUS-CDS and EUS-HGS were included in this study.
RESULTS: Thirteen studies were eligible for inclusion. The technical [odds ratio (OR): 0.95; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.51-1.74) and clinical (OR: 1.13; 95%CI: 0.66-1.94) success rates of EUS-CDS were comparable to those of EUS-HGS. However, EUS-CDS had less reintervention (OR: 0.31; 95%CI: 0.16-0.63) and stent obstruction (OR: 0.48; 95%CI: 0.21-0.94) than EUS-HGS. Both groups had similar adverse events (OR: 1.00; 95%CI: 0.70-1.43) and overall survival (hazard ratio: 1.07; 95%CI: 0.58-1.97).
CONCLUSIONS: EUS-CDS and EUS-HGS have comparable technical and clinical success rates, adverse events, and overall survival. However, EUS-CDS has less reintervention and stent obstruction.

OBJECTIVE: The current clinical study aims to compare the clinical efficacy of open choledochojejunostomy (OCJ) and laparoscopic choledochojejunostomy (LCJ) in patients with benign and malignant biliary tract disorders.
METHODS: The clinical data of 40 consecutive patients who underwent either OCJ or LCJ from January 2015 to February 2017 were retrospectively analyzed. The clinical parameters analyzed include baseline information, intraoperative characteristics, and postoperative clinical outcomes. The patients were divided into OCJ group and LCJ group based on the surgical approach performed.
RESULTS: Of 40 patients during the study period, 15 underwent LCJ and the remaining 25 patients underwent OCJ. The mean operative time was slightly longer in the LCJ group (323.53±150.30 min) than the OCJ group (295.38±130.34 min) (P=0.945); intraoperative blood loss in 2 groups were similar (179.17 vs. 164.67 mL, P=0.839). Although hospital stay was significantly shorter in the LCJ group (8.33±2.1 d) compared with the OCJ group (19.24±4.2 d) (P<0.001). Biliary leakage is the most common complication after OCJ; no complication was experienced in the LCJ group.
CONCLUSIONS: LCJ is a feasible and safe option for patients undergoing choledochojejunostomy.

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided biliary drainage is becoming an option for palliation of malignant biliary obstruction. Lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS) are replacing self-expandable metal stents (SEMS). The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of LAMS and SEMS for EUS-guided choledochoduodenostomy (EUS-CDS).
A meta-analysis was performed using PRISMA protocols. Electronic databases were searched for studies on EUS-CDS. The primary outcome was clinical success. Secondary outcomes were technical success, reintervention, and adverse events. We used the random effects model with the DerSimonian-Laird estimation, and the results were depicted using forest plots. Subgroup analyses were also performed with data stratified by selected variable.
Overall, 31 studies (820 patients) were included. The pooled rates of clinical and technical success were 93.6 % (95 % confidence interval [CI] 88.6 %-96.5 %) and 94.8 % (95 %CI 90.2 %-97.3 %) for LAMS, and 91.7 % (95 %CI 88.1 %-94.2 %) and 92.7 % (95 %CI 89.9 %-94.9 %) for SEMS, respectively. The pooled rates of adverse events were 17.1 % (95 %CI 12.5 %-22.8 %) for LAMS and 18.3 % (95 %CI 14.3 %-23.0 %) for SEMS. The pooled rates of reintervention were 10.9 % (95 %CI 7.7 %-15.3 %) for LAMS and 13.9 % (95 %CI 9.6 %-19.7 %) for SEMS. Subgroup analyses confirmed these results.
This meta-analysis showed that LAMS and SEMS are comparable in terms of efficacy for EUS-CDS. Clinical and technical success, post-procedure adverse events, and reintervention rates were similar between LAMS and SEMS use; however, adverse events require further investigation.

Most patients who require biliary drainage can be treated by endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP)-guided procedures. However, ERCP can be challenging in patients with complications, such as malignant duodenal obstruction, or a surgically-altered anatomy, such as a Roux-en-Y anastomosis, which prevent advancement of the duodenoscope into the ampulla of Vater. Recently, endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided biliary drainage via transhepatic or transduodenal approaches has emerged as an alternative means of biliary drainage. Typically, EUS-guided gallbladder drainage or choledochoduodenostomy can be performed via both approaches, as can EUS-guided hepaticogastrostomy (HGS). EUS-HGS, because of its transgastric approach, can be performed in patients with malignant duodenal obstruction. Technical tips for EUS-HGS have reached maturity due to device and technical developments. Although the technical success rates of EUS-HGS are high, the rate of adverse events is not low, with stent migration still being reported despite many preventive efforts. In this review, we described technical tips for EUS-HGS related to bile duct puncture, guidewire insertion, fistula dilation, and stent deployment, along with a literature review. Additionally, we provided technical tips to improve the technical success of EUS-HGS.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided choledochoduodenostomy (CDD) is emerging as an alternative technique for biliary drainage in patients who fail conventional endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). The lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS) are being increasingly used for CDD. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of CDD using LAMS.
We performed a systematic search of multiple databases through May 2019 to identify studies on CDD using covered self-expanding metal stents. Pooled rates of technical success, clinical success, adverse events, and recurrent jaundice associated with CDD using LAMS were estimated. A subgroup analysis was performed based on use of LAMS with electrocautery-enhanced delivery system (EC-LAMS).
Seven studies on CDD using LAMS (with 284 patients) were included in the meta-analysis. Pooled rates of technical and clinical success (per-protocol analysis) were 95.7% (95% CI 93.2-98.1) and 95.9% (95% CI 92.8-98.9), respectively. Pooled rate of post-procedure adverse events was 5.2% (95% CI 2.6-7.9). Pooled rate of recurrent jaundice was 8.7% (95% CI 4.5-12.8). On subgroup analysis of CDD using EC-LAMS (5 studies with 201 patients), the pooled rates of technical and clinical success (per-protocol analysis) were 93.8% (95% CI 90.4-97.1) and 95.9% (95% CI 91.9-99.9), respectively. Pooled rate of post-procedure adverse events was 5.6% (95% CI 1.7-9.5). Pooled rate of recurrent jaundice was 11.3% (95% CI 6.9-15.7). Heterogeneity (I2) was low to moderate in the analyses.
CDD using LAMS/EC-LAMS is an effective and safe technique for biliary decompression in patients who failed ERCP. Further studies are needed to assess CDD using LAMS as primary treatment modality for biliary obstruction.

BACKGROUND: Choledocholithiasis is an endemic condition in the world. Although rare, foreign body migration with biliary complications needs to be considered in the differential diagnosis for patients presenting with typical symptoms even many years after cholecystectomy, EPCP, war-wound, foreign body ingestion or any other particular history before. It is of great clinical value as the present review may offer some help when dealing with choledocholithiasis caused by foreign bodies.
METHODS: We reported a case of choledocholithiasis caused by fishbone from choledochoduodenal anastomosis regurgitation. Moreover, we showed up all the instances of choledocholithiasis caused by foreign bodies published until June 2018 and wrote the world\'s first literature review of foreign bodies in the bile duct of 144 cases. The findings from this case suggest that the migration of fishbone can cause various consequences, one of these, as we reported here, is as a core of gallstone and a cause of choledocholithiasis.
CONCLUSIONS: The literature review declared the choledocholithiasis caused by foreign bodies prefer the wrinkly and mainly comes from three parts: postoperative complications, foreign body ingestion, and post-war complications such as bullet injury and shrapnel wound. The Jonckheere-Terpstra test indicated the ERCP was currently the treatment of choice. It is a very singular case of choledocholithiasis caused by fishbone, and the present review is the first one concerning choledocholithiasis caused by foreign bodies all over the world.

Success and event rates of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided biliary drainage vary with techniques, and results from different studies remain inconsistent.
We conducted a proportion meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of EUS-guided biliary drainage and compare the outcomes of current procedures.
We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane and Web of knowledge to identify studies reporting technical success, clinical success and complication rates of EUS-guided biliary drainage techniques to estimate their clinical and technical efficacy and safety.
We identified 17 studies including a total of 686 patients. The overall clinical success and technical success rates were respectively 84% confidence interval (CI) 95% (80-88) and 96% CI 95% (93-98) for hepaticogastrostomy, and respectively 87% CI 95% (82-91) and 95% CI 95 (91-97) for choledochoduodenostomy. Reported adverse event rates were significantly higher (p = 0.01) for hepaticogastrostomy (29% CI 95% (24-34)) compared to choledochoduodenostomy (20% CI 95% (16-25)). Compared with hepaticogastrostomy, the pooled odds ratio for the complication rate of choledochoduodenostomy was 2.01 (1.25; 3.24) (p = 0.0042), suggesting that choledochoduodenostomy might be safer than hepaticogastrostomy.
The available literature suggests choledochoduodenostomy may be a safer approach compared to hepaticogastrostomy. Randomized controlled trials with sufficiently large cohorts are needed to compare techniques and confirm these findings.

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography is the preferred method in biliary drainage. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) guidance has shown tremendous success in situations where endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography fails or is contraindicated. EUS-guided choledochoduodenostomy (CDD) in particular is gathering a lot of interest due to its ease, and high rates of success. The reported adverse events with this procedure have been inconsistent among studies.
We conducted a search of multiple electronic databases and conference proceedings from inception through June 2018. The primary outcome was to estimate the risk of adverse events, and the commonly reported subtype of adverse events in EUS-CDD. The secondary outcome was to estimate the pooled technical and clinical success rates.
Thirteen studies including 572 patients underwent biliary drainage with EUS-CDD. The pooled rate of all adverse events was 0.136 (95% confidence interval, 0.097-0.188; P=0.01) with moderate heterogeneity (I=56.9), and pooled rate of cholangitis was 4.2%, bleeding was 4.1%, bile leak was 3.7%, and perforation was 2.9%. On subgroup analysis, the pooled rate of adverse events with the use of lumen-apposing metal stent was 9.3% (95% confidence interval, 4.8-17.3).
On the basis of our analysis EUS-CDD has an adverse event risk of 13.4%, which is lowest reported in literature so far. Reported adverse rates appeared to be lower with the use of lumen-apposing metal stent, except for perforation.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) has emerged as an alternative in cases of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) failure. Two types of EUS-BD methods for achieving biliary drainage when ERCP fails are choledochoduodenostomy (CDS) or hepaticogastrostomy (HGS). However, there is no consensus if one approach is better than the other. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate these 2 main EUS-BD methods.
We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane database, LILACS from inception through April 8, 2017, using the following search terms in various combinations: biliary drainage, biliary stent, transluminal biliary drainage, choledochoduodenostomy, hepaticogastrostomy, endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage. We selected studies comparing CDS and HGS in patients with malignant biliary obstruction with ERCP failure. Pooled odds ratio (OR) were calculated for technical success, clinical success, and adverse events and difference of means calculated for duration of procedure and survival after procedure.
A total of 10 studies with 434 patients were included in the meta-analysis: 208 underwent biliary drainage via HGS and the remaining 226 via CDS. The technical success for CDS and HGS was 94.1% and 93.7%, respectively, pooled OR=0.96 [95% confidence interval (CI)=0.39-2.33, I=0%]. Clinical success was 88.5% in CDS and 84.5% in HGS, pooled OR=0.76 (95% CI=0.42-1.35, I=17%). There was no difference for adverse events OR=0.97 (95% CI=0.60-1.56), I=37%. CDS was about 2 minutes faster with a pooled difference in means of was -2.69 (95% CI=-4.44 to -0.95).
EUS-CDS and EUS-HGS have equal efficacy and safety, and are both associated with a very high technical and clinical success. The choice of approach may be selected based on patient anatomy.