Published in:
01-09-2019 | Cholangiography | Original Article
Treating Biliary-Enteric Anastomotic Strictures with Enteroscopy-ERCP Requires Fewer Procedures than Percutaneous Transhepatic Biliary Drains
Published in: Digestive Diseases and Sciences | Issue 9/2019
Login to get accessAbstract
Background
Biliary-enteric anastomotic strictures (AS) in long-limb surgical biliary bypass (LLBB) require percutaneous transhepatic biliary drains (PTBD), enteroscopy-assisted ERCP (E-ERCP), or surgical revision.
Aim
To compare E-ERCP and PTBD for AS treatment.
Methods
E-ERCP stricturoplasty included dilation, cautery, and stent; PTBD included balloon dilation and serial drain upsizing events.
Results
From May 2008 to October 2015, 71 patients (37 M, median age 52) had E-ERCP (n = 45) or PTBD (n = 26) for AS in Roux-en-Y hepaticojejunostomy: liver transplant (n = 28), cholecystectomy injury revision (n = 21), other (n = 13) or Whipple’s resection (n = 9). Median follow-up is 11 months (range 1–56) in 67 (94%) patients. Technical success, clinical improvement, and adverse events between E-ERCP and PTBD were similar (76% vs. 77%, p = 0.89; 82% vs. 85%, p = 0.80, and 6% vs. 5%, p = 0.60, respectively). However, E-ERCP had fewer post-procedural hospitalization days (0.2 ± 0.65 vs. 4.5±10, p = 0.0001), mean procedures (4.4 ± 6.3 vs. 9.5 ± 8, p = 0.006), and median months of treatment to resolve AS (1, range 1–22 vs. 7, range 3–23; p = 0.003). Two patients in PTBD group required surgery.
Conclusions
(1) Technical success and clinical improvement are seen in the majority of LLBB patients with biliary-enteric AS undergoing E-ERCP or PTBD. (2) E-ERCP is associated with fewer procedures, post-procedure hospitalization days, and months to resolve AS. When expertise is available, E-ERCP to identify and treat AS should be considered as an alternative to PTBD.