Copyright
©The Author(s) 2022.
World J Gastrointest Endosc. May 16, 2022; 14(5): 291-301
Published online May 16, 2022. doi: 10.4253/wjge.v14.i5.291
Published online May 16, 2022. doi: 10.4253/wjge.v14.i5.291
Endoscopic techniques | ||
Advantage | Disadvantage | |
ERC + TPB | Safeness, feasibility and large availability; better sensibility for MBS versus brushing | Low sensitivity for MBS (48%), difficulty of cannulation with standard biopsy forceps, not easy targeting of the lesion |
ERC + TPB with C-BF | Slight better sensibility (60%) for MBS respect to conventional biopsy forceps | Sampling benefits limited to lesions located to the right intrahepatic bile duct (75%) |
Cholangioscopy + endobiliary biopsy | Gain in accuracy for diagnosis of malignancy in indeterminate lesions (85-92%) versus ERCP + TPB | Same safety; issue with direct cholangioscopy related to rare adv events (leakege of air in to portal vein) |
IDUS + TPB | Higher sensitivity for malignancy in indeterminate intraductal lesiones (87-91%) versus ERCP + TPB | Advanced experience in both ERCP/EUS requested, lack of standardized procedure and specific devices, time-consuming technique |
Interventional radiology techniques | ||
Advantage | Disadvantage | |
PTE endobiliary brushing | Safe, cheap and large availability; | Low sensitivity for MBS |
PTE endobiliary biopsy | High sensitivity; Larger biopsy cup comapred to ERC + TPB | Indirect visualization of the lesion |
Colangioscopy + PTEFB | Direct visualization of the lesion; | Combined procedure with endoscopist; Expensive procedure; small size specimen |
- Citation: Inchingolo R, Acquafredda F, Posa A, Nunes TF, Spiliopoulos S, Panzera F, Praticò CA. Endobiliary biopsy. World J Gastrointest Endosc 2022; 14(5): 291-301
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1948-5190/full/v14/i5/291.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4253/wjge.v14.i5.291