Hassan Z, Gadour E. Percutaneous transhepatic cholangiography vs endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage: A systematic review. World J Gastroenterol 2022; 28(27): 3514-3523 [PMID: 36158274 DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v28.i27.3514]
Corresponding Author of This Article
Eyad Gadour, CCST, FRCP, MBBS, MRCP, Consultant Physician-Scientist, Department of Gastroenterology, University Hospitals of Morecambe Bay NHS Foundation Trust, Royal Lancaster Infirmary, Lancaster LA1 4RP, United Kingdom. eyadgadour@doctors.org.uk
Research Domain of This Article
Gastroenterology & Hepatology
Article-Type of This Article
Systematic Reviews
Open-Access Policy of This Article
This article is an open-access article which was selected by an in-house editor and fully peer-reviewed by external reviewers. It is distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
World J Gastroenterol. Jul 21, 2022; 28(27): 3514-3523 Published online Jul 21, 2022. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v28.i27.3514
Percutaneous transhepatic cholangiography vs endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage: A systematic review
Zeinab Hassan, Eyad Gadour
Zeinab Hassan, Internal Medicine, Stockport Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester SK2 7JE, United Kingdom
Eyad Gadour, Department of Gastroenterology, University Hospitals of Morecambe Bay NHS Foundation Trust, Lancaster LA1 4RP, United Kingdom
Author contributions: Hassan Z contributed in study selection, data analysis, and writing of the manuscript; Gadour E contributed in study conception, analysis and interpretation of the data, and drafting of the manuscript; and all authors have approved the final manuscript.
Conflict-of-interest statement: All the authors report no relevant conflicts of interest for this article.
PRISMA 2009 Checklist statement: The authors have read the PRISMA 2009 Checklist, and the manuscript was prepared and revised according to the PRISMA 2009 Checklist.
Open-Access: This article is an open-access article that was selected by an in-house editor and fully peer-reviewed by external reviewers. It is distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: https://creativecommons.org/Licenses/by-nc/4.0/
Corresponding author: Eyad Gadour, CCST, FRCP, MBBS, MRCP, Consultant Physician-Scientist, Department of Gastroenterology, University Hospitals of Morecambe Bay NHS Foundation Trust, Royal Lancaster Infirmary, Lancaster LA1 4RP, United Kingdom. eyadgadour@doctors.org.uk
Received: November 22, 2021 Peer-review started: November 23, 2021 First decision: January 9, 2022 Revised: January 21, 2022 Accepted: June 23, 2022 Article in press: June 23, 2022 Published online: July 21, 2022 Processing time: 237 Days and 23.9 Hours
Core Tip
Core Tip: Endoscopic transpapillary biliary drainage (BD) is the preferred approach for biliary decompression in patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer and obstructive jaundice. We conducted a systematic review of studies comparing the technical aspects and outcomes of two distinct approaches for BD: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided BD (EUS-BD) and percutaneous transhepatic BD (PTBD). The evaluation of six studies that fulfilled the inclusion criteria revealed that PTBD was associated with more reinterventions, postprocedural pain, and late adverse events compared with EUS-BD. Both procedures were associated with a significant reduction in the total bilirubin levels at the 7-d follow-up, and there were no significant differences in the complication rates between the two procedures. In summary, EUS-BD was associated with a higher rate of effective BD and manageable procedure-related adverse events compared with PTBD, highlighting its utility in successful BD.
