Evaluating the common bile duct is critical in identifying conditions like choledocholithiasis, which affects up to 20% of patients with gallstones1. Advanced imaging techniques, such as endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and endoscopic ultrasound, play pivotal roles in this process. These methods offer high technical and clinical success rates, making them essential tools for healthcare professionals.
Recent studies highlight the evolving clinical applications of these procedures. For instance, endoscopic ultrasound demonstrated a sensitivity of 95.65% and specificity of 94.23% in detecting lesions2. Meanwhile, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography remains a reliable option, though its complication rate is higher compared to endoscopic ultrasound1.
Methodological advancements continue to enhance the accuracy and safety of these techniques. Understanding their strengths and limitations is crucial for effective patient management in cases of biliary obstruction.
Key Takeaways
- Choledocholithiasis affects up to 20% of patients with gallstones1.
- Endoscopic ultrasound shows high sensitivity (95.65%) and specificity (94.23%)2.
- Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography has a higher complication rate compared to endoscopic ultrasound1.
- Both methods are essential for evaluating the common bile duct.
- Recent advancements improve the accuracy and safety of these techniques.
Introduction to Biliary Obstruction Diagnosis
Understanding bile duct anatomy is critical in diagnosing related conditions. The common bile duct plays a central role in transporting bile from the liver to the intestines. When this pathway is blocked, it can lead to severe complications, including jaundice and infection3.
Gallstones are a leading cause of bile duct obstruction, affecting up to 20% of patients with this condition3. In the U.S., 10% to 15% of adults develop gallstones during their lifetime, with a higher prevalence in certain populations3. For example, Northern Native Americans have the highest reported rates, while Asian and African Americans show intermediate prevalence3.
Accurate diagnosis is essential for effective treatment. Imaging techniques like MRI/MRCP offer high sensitivity and specificity, making them valuable tools in clinical practice4. Studies show that combining these methods with biomarkers like CA 19-9 can further improve diagnostic accuracy4.
Early detection of bile duct obstruction can prevent complications such as acute cholangitis, which can progress to systemic sepsis if untreated3. This underscores the importance of timely and precise diagnostic approaches in patient care.
Understanding ERCP for Biliary Procedures
The evolution of endoscopic techniques has transformed the management of bile duct conditions. Initially developed as a diagnostic tool, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography has evolved into a therapeutic procedure. It is now a cornerstone in treating conditions like malignant bile duct obstruction5.
Technical Aspects and Procedure Steps
The procedure involves several precise steps. First, a specialized endoscope is advanced to the duodenum. Next, a catheter is used to cannulate the bile duct, allowing for contrast injection and imaging6. Stent placement is often performed to relieve obstructions, with technical success rates exceeding 96%5.
Accessing the pancreatic duct can be challenging, requiring expert technique. Studies highlight the importance of proper cannulation to minimize complications7. The use of advanced tools, such as fine needles, has further improved outcomes6.
Risks and Procedure-Related Complications
Despite its effectiveness, the procedure carries risks. Post-ERCP pancreatitis is the most common complication, occurring in up to 10% of cases5. Other risks include bleeding, infection, and perforation, though these are less frequent6.
“Timely intervention is critical in reducing complications and improving patient outcomes.”
Studies emphasize the need for skilled practitioners to mitigate these risks. The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy recommends strict adherence to procedural guidelines to enhance safety5.
Understanding Endoscopic Ultrasound (EUS) in Biliary Obstruction
Endoscopic ultrasound has emerged as a pivotal tool in modern medical diagnostics. This advanced imaging technique combines high-frequency ultrasound with endoscopy, providing detailed visualization of the bile ducts and surrounding structures7. Its minimally invasive nature and high accuracy make it a preferred choice for evaluating complex cases.
EUS Techniques and Device Innovations
Recent advancements in endoscopic ultrasound technology have significantly improved procedural efficiency. Innovations like electrocautery-enhanced lumen-apposing metal stents offer enhanced clinical benefits8. These devices allow for precise placement and improved outcomes in treating bile duct abnormalities.
Studies highlight the sensitivity of ultrasound in detecting bile duct obstruction, with rates reported at 85-90%7. This accuracy, combined with the ability to avoid pancreatic duct manipulation, underscores its advantages over traditional methods.
| Device Innovation | Clinical Benefit |
|---|---|
| Electrocautery-enhanced stents | Improved placement accuracy |
| High-frequency probes | Enhanced imaging resolution |
| Lumen-apposing metal stents | Reduced procedural complications |
Learning Curve and Training Challenges
Despite its advantages, mastering endoscopic ultrasound requires extensive training. The steep learning curve is attributed to the need for precise hand-eye coordination and advanced anatomical knowledge8. Guidelines from organizations like ASGE and ESGE emphasize the importance of structured training programs to ensure proficiency.
Recent clinical trials demonstrate similar success rates between EUS and traditional methods, further validating its role in clinical practice7. As device technology continues to evolve, the adoption of this technique is expected to grow, offering new possibilities for patient care.
Comparing Technical Success Rates
A detailed analysis of technical outcomes reveals critical insights into the effectiveness of modern diagnostic procedures. Pooled meta-analysis data indicate that both approaches achieve technical success rates of approximately 95%9. This highlights their reliability in clinical practice.
Minor differences in technical metrics were observed between the two methods. For instance, the risk ratio (RR) for success in one study was 1.02, suggesting comparable performance10. These findings are supported by rigorous statistical measures, ensuring the validity of the results.
The reviewed studies employed standardized methods for technical evaluation. Metrics such as stent placement accuracy and procedural duration were assessed to provide a comprehensive analysis9. This approach ensures objective performance comparisons.
- Technical success rates for both procedures exceed 90%9.
- Risk ratios (RR) confirm minimal differences in performance10.
- Standardized evaluation methods enhance the reliability of results.
These results underscore the importance of selecting the appropriate procedure based on patient-specific factors. Continued study and refinement of these techniques will further optimize their clinical application.
Assessing Clinical Success and Procedure Time
Evaluating clinical outcomes is essential for optimizing procedural efficiency. Recent studies highlight that both methods achieve success rates of 94-96%, with minimal differences in performance11. These metrics are defined by improvements in symptoms and laboratory results, ensuring patient recovery.
When comparing procedure time, certain studies note a slight advantage for one method. For instance, the median time for one approach is 30 minutes, while the other averages 40 minutes11. This difference, though marginal, can impact overall workflow in clinical settings.
Criteria used in studies to measure outcomes include stent placement accuracy and procedural duration. These factors are critical for assessing the effectiveness of each method12. Rigorous evaluation ensures reliable results and informed decision-making.
Nuances in procedural methodology also influence overall duration. Factors like device innovation and operator skill play significant roles in reducing time and enhancing success rates13. Continued advancements in technology are expected to further streamline these processes.
Comparative study data reflect standard performance outcomes, providing valuable insights for healthcare professionals. By understanding these metrics, practitioners can select the most appropriate approach for each patient12.
Evaluating Safety Profiles and Adverse Events
Safety considerations are paramount when assessing endoscopic procedures. Understanding the unique adverse event patterns associated with each method is essential for optimizing patient outcomes. This section provides a balanced review of safety profiles, focusing on complications like pancreatitis and bile peritonitis.
Incidence of Post-Procedure Pancreatitis
Pancreatitis is a significant concern following endoscopic interventions. Studies show that the incidence of pancreatitis is markedly lower with one method compared to the other, with rates reported at 2% versus 10%14. This difference underscores the importance of selecting the appropriate procedure based on patient-specific factors.
Mitigation strategies, such as careful patient selection and procedural adjustments, can reduce the risk of pancreatitis. Recent research highlights the role of advanced techniques in minimizing complications15.
Occurrence of Bile Peritonitis
Bile peritonitis is another complication observed in a small percentage of cases. This condition is primarily associated with one method, emphasizing the need for precise procedural execution14. Early detection and management are critical to preventing severe outcomes.
Technical innovations, such as improved imaging and device design, have significantly reduced the occurrence of bile peritonitis. These advancements contribute to enhanced safety profiles15.
| Complication | Incidence Rate | Mitigation Strategies |
|---|---|---|
| Pancreatitis | 2-10% | Patient selection, procedural adjustments |
| Bile Peritonitis | Small percentage | Improved imaging, device design |
“Understanding and addressing adverse events is critical for improving procedural safety and patient outcomes.”
Comparative studies highlight the clinical significance of these complications. By analyzing safety profiles, healthcare professionals can make informed decisions, ensuring optimal patient care14.
Analyzing Reintervention Rates and Stent Patency
Mid- to long-term outcomes in procedural efficacy are critical for patient management. A recent meta-analysis highlights slightly lower reintervention rates and improved stent patency with one method compared to another, though the difference is not statistically significant16.
Clinical studies define stent patency as the duration a stent remains functional without obstruction. Measurement criteria include imaging assessments and symptom resolution17. These metrics are essential for evaluating procedural success and patient outcomes.
Comparative analysis reveals that reintervention rates vary between methods. For instance, one approach shows a reintervention rate of 13.9%, while another reports 10.9%18. These differences, though minor, influence clinical decision-making.
Statistical insights from pooled studies provide further clarity. Hazard ratios and risk ratios indicate comparable performance, with slight advantages in specific scenarios16. These findings underscore the importance of tailored procedural selection.
- Reintervention rates are lower with certain methods, improving patient outcomes17.
- Stent patency is influenced by design and placement techniques18.
- Pooled analysis highlights minimal differences in long-term efficacy16.
Technical advancements in stent design contribute to improved performance. Innovations like lumen-apposing metal stents enhance drainage efficiency and reduce complications17. These developments are pivotal for optimizing procedural outcomes.
Understanding these metrics is essential for effective patient follow-up. By integrating study findings into clinical practice, healthcare professionals can ensure better long-term management18.
Subgroup Analysis: Patients Without Duodenal Invasion
Examining specific patient subgroups provides valuable insights into procedural efficacy. This analysis focuses on individuals with an endoscopically accessible papilla, a distinct group that offers unique clinical considerations19.
In this group, both EUS-CDS and ERCP demonstrate similar technical and clinical success rates. Recent studies report technical success rates of 90.4% for EUS-CDS and 83.1% for ERCP, with no significant statistical difference19. This highlights the reliability of both methods in this specific patient population.
Comparative Outcomes in Accessible Papilla Cases
Adverse event profiles vary slightly between the two procedures. EUS-CDS shows a lower incidence of pancreatitis, occurring in 2% of cases compared to 10% with ERCP19. This difference underscores the importance of tailored procedural selection based on patient characteristics.
Stent dysfunction rates at one year are comparable, with EUS-CDS at 9.6% and ERCP at 9.9%19. These findings suggest that both methods offer durable outcomes in this group, with minimal long-term complications.
| Procedure | Technical Success Rate | Adverse Event Rate |
|---|---|---|
| EUS-CDS | 90.4% | 12.3% |
| ERCP | 83.1% | 12.7% |
Clinical success rates are also similar, with EUS-CDS achieving 84.9% and ERCP 85.9%19. These metrics reinforce the effectiveness of both procedures in managing bile duct conditions in this patient subgroup.
Understanding these outcomes is crucial for healthcare professionals. By leveraging study data, clinicians can make informed decisions, optimizing procedural selection for each patient20.
ERCP vs EUS for Biliary Obstruction Diagnosis
Modern diagnostic approaches offer distinct advantages in evaluating bile duct conditions. Both endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and endoscopic ultrasound are widely used, each with unique strengths and limitations21.
Comparative data from randomized controlled trials highlight technical success rates exceeding 90% for both methods22. However, endoscopic ultrasound demonstrates higher sensitivity in detecting lesions, making it a preferred choice in certain cases21.
When considering malignant biliary obstruction, endoscopic ultrasound shows superior accuracy in tissue diagnosis, with sensitivity rates of 75% compared to 49% for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography21. This underscores its potential as a first-line diagnostic tool.
Statistical comparisons using risk ratios reveal minimal differences in clinical success rates. Both methods achieve success rates of 94-96%, ensuring reliable outcomes22. However, nuances in procedural application must be considered for optimal patient care.
Further large-scale studies are essential to refine procedural selection. Ongoing research aims to enhance the accuracy and safety of these techniques, improving long-term patient outcomes21.
Long-Term Outcomes and Follow-Up Considerations
Assessing long-term procedural efficacy is essential for optimizing patient care. Studies highlight comparable outcomes across different methods, with a focus on reintervention rates and stent durability16. These metrics are critical for evaluating the success of initial interventions.
Follow-up protocols vary among centers, but standardized strategies are emerging. For instance, reintervention rates for one method show a CEM OR of 0.58 (95% CI, 0.36–0.92), indicating improved long-term performance16. This underscores the importance of tailored follow-up plans based on procedural results.
Stent dysfunction rates at one year are comparable, with one method reporting 9.6% and another 9.9%18. This analysis suggests that both approaches offer durable solutions, though minor differences exist. Understanding these nuances is vital for effective patient management.
Comparative studies reveal that procedural time can influence long-term outcomes. One method shows a standardized mean difference of −2.36 minutes, which may impact overall workflow16. These insights help clinicians refine their approach to follow-up care.
Integrating data from multiple studies provides a comprehensive view of long-term efficacy. By leveraging this information, healthcare professionals can ensure better patient results and improved procedural performance18.
Impact of Duodenal Obstruction and Surgical Alterations
Duodenal obstruction and surgical alterations present unique challenges in procedural planning. These conditions often complicate access to the common bile duct, influencing the selection and outcomes of diagnostic and therapeutic interventions23.
When duodenal invasion is present, the technical approach to biliary drainage must be modified. Studies show that altered anatomy increases the risk of procedural failure and complications15. For instance, the success rate of standard techniques drops significantly in patients with prior surgical alterations14.
Clinical decision-making in these cases requires a thorough evaluation of the patient’s anatomy. Tailored strategies, such as alternative access routes or advanced imaging, are often necessary to achieve successful outcomes23. This individualized approach minimizes the risk of adverse events and improves overall procedural efficacy.
Recent studies highlight the importance of pre-procedural planning in patients with complex anatomy. Data indicate that a detailed anatomical assessment can reduce the likelihood of complications by up to 30%15. This underscores the need for a multidisciplinary approach in managing these challenging cases.
| Condition | Impact on Procedural Success | Mitigation Strategies |
|---|---|---|
| Duodenal Obstruction | Reduced access to common bile duct | Alternative access routes |
| Surgical Alterations | Increased risk of complications | Advanced imaging techniques |
| Complex Anatomy | Higher procedural failure rates | Individualized treatment plans |
Understanding the impact of these factors is critical for optimizing patient care. By integrating data from studies and adopting tailored approaches, healthcare professionals can improve outcomes in patients with duodenal obstruction or altered surgical anatomy14.
Advances in Endoscopic Techniques and Device Technology
Recent advancements in endoscopic tools have revolutionized the way bile duct conditions are managed. Innovations in stent design, particularly electrocautery-enhanced lumen-apposing metal stents, have significantly improved procedural outcomes24. These devices offer enhanced precision and reduced complication rates, making them a cornerstone of modern endoscopic techniques.
Clinical studies highlight the benefits of these innovations. For instance, the technical success rate of using electrocautery-enhanced stents has reached 94.8%, with a clinical success rate of 100%25. This method not only improves procedural efficiency but also minimizes adverse events, such as bile leakage and infection24.
Innovations in Metal Stent Design
Metal stents have undergone significant transformations in recent years. The introduction of lumen-apposing designs has allowed for better tissue integration and reduced migration rates26. These stents are particularly effective in complex cases, where traditional devices may fail.
Comparative studies show that the new stent designs outperform traditional equipment in both technical and clinical success rates24. For example, the recurrence rate of acute cholecystitis dropped to 3.6% with the use of advanced stents, compared to higher rates with older models25.
| Device Innovation | Clinical Benefit |
|---|---|
| Electrocautery-enhanced stents | Improved placement accuracy |
| Lumen-apposing designs | Reduced migration rates |
| High-frequency probes | Enhanced imaging resolution |
Future research aims to further refine these devices, with ongoing studies exploring the potential of biodegradable stents and AI-assisted placement techniques26. These advancements promise to enhance patient outcomes and expand the scope of endoscopic interventions.
Economic and Clinical Implications of Procedure Choices
The economic and clinical impact of procedural choices plays a pivotal role in healthcare decision-making. Recent studies highlight the importance of evaluating both financial and clinical outcomes to optimize patient care27.
Cost-effectiveness is a critical factor in selecting diagnostic and therapeutic approaches. One study found that employing a specific method as a first-line approach resulted in significant cost savings, with an overall reduction in procedural expenses28. This analysis underscores the need for a balanced evaluation of both economic and clinical benefits.
Procedural costs, including reintervention and long-term management expenses, vary between methods. For instance, one approach demonstrated lower reintervention rates, reducing the financial burden on healthcare systems27. These findings emphasize the importance of considering long-term outcomes in economic evaluations.
Patient outcomes are a cornerstone of economic analysis. Data from recent studies show that certain methods achieve higher clinical success rates, directly influencing cost-effectiveness28. This highlights the interconnectedness of clinical and financial considerations in procedural selection.
- Procedural costs are influenced by reintervention rates and long-term management expenses27.
- Economic studies emphasize the cost-effectiveness of specific methods28.
- Patient outcomes play a critical role in determining the overall value of a procedure27.
Understanding these economic and clinical implications is essential for informed decision-making. By integrating data from studies, healthcare professionals can optimize procedural choices, ensuring both financial efficiency and improved patient care28.
Integrating Study Findings into Clinical Practice
Translating research findings into actionable clinical protocols enhances patient care outcomes. The synthesis of multiple studies supports an integrative approach that optimizes the use of advanced techniques based on individual patient factors27.
Clinical protocols can be enhanced by incorporating data from recent studies. For instance, the sensitivity of CA 19-9 in detecting malignancies can be as low as 74%, but when combined with imaging, it improves to 97.2%27. This highlights the importance of integrating biomarkers with diagnostic imaging for better accuracy.
Standardized methods for assessing procedural success and safety are critical. A meta-analysis found that CA 19-9 had a pooled diagnostic accuracy of 81%, emphasizing the need for consistent evaluation criteria27. These standards ensure reliable and reproducible results across different clinical settings.
Recommendations for integrating evidence-based practices include the use of advanced imaging techniques like MRI/MRCP, which have a sensitivity range of 81 to 100%27. These methods provide detailed visualization, aiding in accurate diagnosis and treatment planning.
Authoritative guidelines play a pivotal role in shaping clinical decisions. For example, the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy recommends strict adherence to procedural guidelines to enhance safety and efficacy27. Following these guidelines ensures that clinical practices are aligned with the latest evidence.
| Key Aspect | Clinical Implication |
|---|---|
| Biomarker Integration | Improves diagnostic accuracy |
| Standardized Evaluation | Ensures reliable results |
| Advanced Imaging | Enhances visualization |
| Authoritative Guidelines | Aligns practices with evidence |
By integrating data from multiple studies, healthcare professionals can optimize procedural choices, ensuring both financial efficiency and improved patient care29. This approach not only enhances clinical outcomes but also supports the overall goal of advancing medical practice.
Future Trends and Research in Biliary Drainage
Innovations in biliary drainage technology are reshaping the future of medical diagnostics and treatment. Emerging research highlights continuous advancements in endoscopic ultrasound and procedural refinements, offering new possibilities for patient care23.
Current studies focus on the next generation of drainage techniques. For instance, electrocautery-enhanced lumen-apposing metal stents have shown improved placement accuracy and reduced procedural complications30. These innovations are setting new standards in clinical practice.
The evolving role of endoscopic ultrasound is broadening clinical indications. Recent findings suggest that EUS-FNA/FNB has an 80% sensitivity for detecting malignant biliary strictures, making it a valuable tool in complex cases23.
Preliminary research is also exploring the potential of biodegradable stents and AI-assisted placement techniques. These advancements could significantly alter standard practices in the future, offering enhanced precision and reduced risk of complications30.
Comparative studies are essential for understanding the benefits and limitations of emerging techniques. For example, the recanalization success rate of magnetic compression anastomosis (MCA) ranges between 77% and 100%, highlighting its potential in challenging cases23.
| Innovation | Clinical Benefit |
|---|---|
| Electrocautery-enhanced stents | Improved placement accuracy |
| Biodegradable stents | Reduced long-term complications |
| AI-assisted techniques | Enhanced procedural precision |
Understanding these trends is crucial for healthcare professionals. By integrating data from ongoing studies, clinicians can optimize procedural choices, ensuring both financial efficiency and improved patient care30.
Conclusion
The comparative analysis of advanced diagnostic techniques highlights distinct clinical applications and outcomes. Both endoscopic retrograde and ultrasound methods achieve high success rates, with technical and clinical outcomes exceeding 90%10. However, each approach carries unique risk profiles, emphasizing the need for patient-specific decision-making.
This article underscores the importance of integrating these findings into routine clinical practice. By leveraging the strengths of each method, healthcare professionals can optimize patient care and improve overall outcomes31. Further research is encouraged to refine procedural protocols and enhance patient selection criteria.
In conclusion, the result of this analysis supports a balanced approach to diagnostic and therapeutic interventions. Medical professionals are encouraged to use these insights to make evidence-based decisions, ensuring both safety and efficacy in clinical practice.
FAQ
What is the primary purpose of using endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in biliary obstruction?
How does endoscopic ultrasound assist in diagnosing biliary obstruction?
What are the common risks associated with endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography?
What advancements have been made in endoscopic techniques for biliary drainage?
How do the success rates of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and endoscopic ultrasound compare?
What factors influence the choice between endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and endoscopic ultrasound?
What are the long-term outcomes of biliary drainage procedures?
How does duodenal obstruction impact the choice of procedure?
What are the economic implications of choosing endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography over endoscopic ultrasound?
What future trends are expected in the field of biliary drainage?
Source Links
- The role of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) in detecting common bile duct (CBD) stones missed post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in patients with calculous obstructive jaundice – The Egyptian Journal of Internal Medicine – https://ejim.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s43162-024-00374-w
- Diagnostic yield of endoscopic ultrasound in dilated common bile duct with non-diagnostic cross-sectional imaging – BMC Gastroenterology – https://bmcgastroenterol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12876-024-03406-5
- Biliary Obstruction – StatPearls – NCBI Bookshelf – https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK539698/
- Diagnostic Approach to Biliary Strictures – https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4418/15/3/325
- Urgent Endoscopic Biliary Procedures: “Run Like the Wind”? – https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0383/14/3/1017
- Obstructive Jaundice | Center for Advanced Digestive Care – NewYork-Presbyterian/Weill Cornell Medical Center – https://www.nyp.org/cadc/liver-diseases-and-transplantation/obstructive-jaundice
- Bile Duct Cancer Diagnostic Tests | How Do You Test for Bile Duct Cancer? – https://www.cancer.org/cancer/types/bile-duct-cancer/detection-diagnosis-staging/how-diagnosed.html
- Tests for bile duct cancer – https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/bile-duct-cancer/getting-diagnosed/tests-bile-duct-cancer
- Selection methods for endoscopic ultrasound‑guided biliary drainage cases that are appropriate for beginners – https://www.spandidos-publications.com/10.3892/etm.2025.12803
- Efficacy and safety of endoscopic ultrasound-guided hepaticogastrostomy for biliary drainage in hypervascular hepatocellular carcinoma: a retrospective study from Japan – https://www.e-ce.org/journal/view.php?number=7940
- Endoscopic ultrasound-guided hepaticogastrostomy and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography-guided biliary drainage for distal malignant biliary obstruction due to pancreatic cancer with asymptomatic duodenal invasion: a retrospective, single-center study in Japan – https://www.e-ce.org/journal/view.php?number=7910
- Controversies in Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Biliary Drainage – https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6694/16/9/1616
- Pre-Cut Papillotomy Versus Endoscopic Ultrasound-Rendezvous for Difficult Biliary Cannulation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis | Iqbal – https://www.gastrores.org/index.php/Gastrores/article/view/1738/1724
- Comparative efficacy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage versus endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography as first-line palliation in malignant distal biliary obstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis – https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11372544/
- Controversies in Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Biliary Drainage – https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11083358/
- The Role of Therapeutic Endoscopic Ultrasound in Management of Malignant Double Obstruction (Biliary and Gastric Outlet): A Comprehensive Review with Clinical Scenarios – https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0383/13/24/7731
- The past, present, and future of endoscopic management for biliary strictures: technological innovations and stent advancements – https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/medicine/articles/10.3389/fmed.2024.1334154/pdf
- Biliary drainage in patients with malignant distal biliary obstruction: results of an Italian consensus conference – Surgical Endoscopy – https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00464-024-11245-4
- Biliary drainage in patients with malignant distal biliary obstruction: results of an Italian consensus conference – https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11525304/
- Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Hepaticogastrostomy in Malignant Biliary Obstruction: A Comprehensive Review on Technical Tips and Clinical Outcomes – https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11640186/
- Endoscopic Ultrasound and Intraductal Ultrasound in the Diagnosis of Biliary Tract Diseases: A Narrative Review – https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4418/14/18/2086
- 2024 American Guidelines for Biliary Obstruction: EUS and ERCP for Complex Biliary Drainage – https://www.bumrungrad.com/en/health-blog/november-2024/american-guidelines-for-biliary-obstruction
- Frontiers | The past, present, and future of endoscopic management for biliary strictures: technological innovations and stent advancements – https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/medicine/articles/10.3389/fmed.2024.1334154/full
- Advances in Endoscopic Ultrasound in Pancreatic Cancer Screening, Diagnosis, and Palliative Care – https://www.mdpi.com/2227-9059/13/1/76
- Revolutionizing outcomes: endoscopic ultrasound-guided gallbladder drainage using innovative electrocautery enhanced-lumen apposing metal stents for high-risk surgical patients – Scientific Reports – https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-63608-5
- Practice guidelines for managing extrahepatic biliary tract cancers – https://www.ahbps.org/journal/view.html?doi=10.14701/ahbps.23-170
- Diagnostic Approach to Biliary Strictures – https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11816488/
- Meta-analysis of the effectiveness of early endoscopic treatment of Acute biliary pancreatitis based on lightweight deep learning model – BMC Gastroenterology – https://bmcgastroenterol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12876-024-03361-1
- Frontiers | A machine learning-based predictive model for biliary stricture attributable to malignant tumors: a dual-center retrospective study – https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/oncology/articles/10.3389/fonc.2024.1406512/full
- Role of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in pancreatitis – https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11842904/
- Increased ERCP-related adverse event from premature urgent ERCP following symptom onset in acute biliary pancreatitis with cholangitis – Scientific Reports – https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-64644-x