Therapeutic interventional endoscopic ultrasound in pancreato-biliary disorders: Does it really replace the surgical/percutaneous approach?

doi:10.4240/wjgs.v13.i6.537

Advanced Search

BPG is committed to discovery and dissemination of knowledge

Home / Archive / Volume 13, Issue 6

This Article

Academic Content and Language Evaluation of This Article

CrossCheck and Google Search of This Article

Academic Rules and Norms of This Article

Citation of this article

Corresponding Author of This Article

Research Domain of This Article

Article-Type of This Article

Open-Access Policy of This Article

Times Cited Counts in Google of This Article

Number of Hits and Downloads for This Article

Total Article Views (4894)

All Articles published online

The chart showing PDF series, WORD series, HTML series, Figures (1-2) series, Tables (1-3) series.

Item

Count

PDF

444

WORD

180

HTML

2475

Figures (1-2)

343

Tables (1-3)

263

Sum=3705

Publishing Process of This Article

The chart showing Browse series, Download series.

Item

Count

Browse

577

Download

612

Sum=1189

Jun 27, 2021 (publication date) through Jul 5, 2024

Times Cited of This Article

Times Cited (5)

Journal Information of This Article

Publication Name

World Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery

ISSN

1948-9366

Publisher of This Article

Baishideng Publishing Group Inc, 7041 Koll Center Parkway, Suite 160, Pleasanton, CA 94566, USA

Minireviews

World J Gastrointest Surg. Jun 27, 2021; 13(6): 537-547
Published online Jun 27, 2021. doi: 10.4240/wjgs.v13.i6.537

Table 3 Summary of studies comparing endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastroenterostomy/endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastro-jejunostomy with surgical procedures in patients with gastric outlet obstruction

Ref.	Design	Cases	Number of patients	Technical success rate	Complication rate
Khashab et al[35]	Retrospective study	Patients with malignant gastric outlet obstruction who underwent EUS-GE or surgical gastrojejunostomy (SGJ)	93	Technical success rate: EUS-GE vs SGJ: 87% vs 100% (P = 0.009). Clinical success rate: EUS-GE vs SGJ: 87% vs 90% (P = 0.8)	Recurrence rate: EUS-GE vs SGJ: 3% vs 14% (P = 0.2). Adverse event rate: EUS-GE vs SGJ: 16% vs 25% (P = 0.3). Length of stay: EUS-GE vs SGJ: 11.6 ± 6.6 d vs 12 ± 8.2 d (P = 0.35)
Perez-Miranda et al[36]	Retrospective study	Patients with gastric outlet obstruction who underwent EUS-guided gastrojejunostomy (EUS-GJ) or laparoscopic gastrojejunostomy (Lap-GJ)	54	Technical success rate: EUS-GJ vs Lap-GJ: 88% vs 100% (P = 0.11). Clinical success rate: EUS-GJ vs Lap-GJ: 84% vs 90% (P = 0.11)	Adverse event rate: EUS-GJ vs Lap-GJ: 12% vs 41% (P = 0.0386)
Jayaraj et al[37]	Systematic review and meta-analysis	Patients with malignant gastric outlet obstruction who underwent EUS-GE and surgical GE	171	Technical success rate: pooled OR: 0.16 (P = 0.033). Clinical success rate: pooled OR: 0.98 (P = 0.984)	Overall adverse event rate: pooled OR: 0.35 (P = 0.014)
Kouanda et al[38]	Retrospective study	Patients with gastric outlet obstruction who underwent EUS-GE or open gastrojejunostomy (OGJ)	66	Technical success rate: EUS-GE vs OGJ: 92.5% vs 100% (P = 0.15)	Recurrence of the symptoms: EUS-GE vs OGJ: 17.5% vs 19.2% (P = 0.34). Re-intervention rate: EUS-GE vs OGJ: 20% vs 11.5% (P = 0.78). Resumption of oral intake: EUS-GE vs OGJ: 1.3 d vs 4.7 d (P < 0.001). Length of hospital stay: EUS-GE vs OGJ: 5 d vs 14.5 d (P < 0.001). 30-d readmission rate: EUS-GE vs OGJ: 17.5% vs 24.1% (P = 0.37)

EUS-GE: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastroenterostomy; OR: Odds ratio.

Citation: Lesmana CRA, Paramitha MS, Gani RA. Therapeutic interventional endoscopic ultrasound in pancreato-biliary disorders: Does it really replace the surgical/percutaneous approach? World J Gastrointest Surg 2021; 13(6): 537-547
URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1948-9366/full/v13/i6/537.htm
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4240/wjgs.v13.i6.537