Systematic Reviews
Copyright ©The Author(s) 2022.
World J Gastroenterol. Jul 21, 2022; 28(27): 3514-3523
Published online Jul 21, 2022. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v28.i27.3514
Table 1 Baseline characteristics of the studies
Ref.
Artifon et al[23]
Bapaye et al[24]
Khashab et al[25]
Giovannini[26]
Jung et al[27]
Sharaiha et al[28]
Type of study (country)Single-center, prospective, randomized, controlled trial(Brazil)Single-center, retrospective, comparative study (India)Single-center, retrospective, comparative, cohort study (United States)Multicenter, randomized, phase II trial (France)Multicenter, prospective, randomized, controlled trial (South Korea)Single-center, retrospective, cohort review (United States)
Age [mean (SD)/median ± SD], yr63.4 (11.1) vs 71.0 (11.9)59.9 ± 13.3 vs 62.4 ± 10.264.9 ± 12.5 vs 66.9 ± 12.5N/A66.5 vs 68.468.7 ± 13.9 vs 58.8 ± 13.6
Males/females2.25 vs 2.01.08 vs 1.61.2 vs 1.310.91 vs 93.25 vs 312 vs 1.47
Comorbidity/quality index (mean)58.3 vs 57.8 (QoL sF 36)N/AN/AN/A40.7 vs 40.5 (global health status/QoL)5.9 vs 6.4 (Charleston comorbidity index)
Total bilirubin (mean), mg/dL16.4 vs 17.27.11 ± 7.6 vs 9.41 ± 12.415.8 ± 11.3 vs 14.5 ± 8.8N/A10.4 vs 11.8N/A
Mean diameter of bile duct13.7 vs 11.9N/AN/AN/A11.22 vs 12.6N/A
Etiology of obstruction
Adenocarcinoma of the pancreatic10 vs 615 vs 1843N/A12 vs 1222
Advanced lymphoma/liposarcoma0 vs 101N/A00
Cholangiocarcinoma1 vs 12 vs 212N/A7 vs 149
Duodenal carcinoma001N/A3 vs 05
Gall bladder cancer000N/A5 vs 50
Gastric carcinoma0 vs 101N/A3 vs 24
Metastasis0 vs 3012N/A3 vs 17
Plasmacytoma1 vs 000N/A00
Total malignancy037N/A
Reason for ERCP failure
Altered anatomy190N/A12 vs 10N/A
Duodenal/stomach invasion8320N/A22 vs 22N/A
Indwelling duodenal stent0160N/A0N/A
Unable to cannulate16420N/A0N/A
Table 2 Rates of clinical and technical success in the included studies
Ref.Technical success
Clinical success
EUS-guided Choledochoduodenostomy
Percutaneous transhepatic biliarydrainage
EUS-guided Choledochoduodenostomy
Percutaneous transhepatic biliarydrainage
Artifon et al[23]13/1312/1213/1312/12
Bapaye et al[24]23/2526/2623/2526/26
Khashab et al[25]19/2251/5119/1947/51
Giovannini[26]19/2017/1718/1917/17
Jung et al[27]32/3431/3228/3227/31
Sharaiha et al[28]43/4712/1327/433/12
Table 3 Quality of identified studies
Ref.
Criteria
Overall appraisal
C1
C2
C3
C4
C5
C6
C7
C8
C9
Artifon et al[23]YesYesYesYesYesYesYesUnclearYesIncluded
Bapaye et al[24]YesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesIncluded
Khashab et al[25]YesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesIncluded
Giovannini[26]UnclearYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesIncluded
Jung et al[27]YesYesYesYesYesYesYesUnclearYesIncluded
Sharaiha et al[28]YesYesYesYesYesUnclearYesYesYesIncluded