
<script type="text/javascript">
<!--
document.write('<div id="oa_widget"></div>');
document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="https://www.openaire.eu/index.php?option=com_openaire&view=widget&format=raw&projectId=undefined&type=result"></script>');
-->
</script>doi: 10.1111/den.12818
pmid: 28118509
Drainage of obstructed bile duct and pancreatic duct under endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) guidance has evolved into viable techniques suitable for patients with failed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and/or altered surgical anatomy. One of the major advantages of EUS guidance is the possibility of multiple access points depending upon patient and ductal anatomy. Unlike ERCP, an approachable papilla is not a requisite for successful EUS‐guided biliary or pancreatic ductal drainage. Moreover, as the access is away from the papilla, there is the possibility of reduced pancreatitis. A variety of procedures have become available for EUS‐guided drainage, and it is important to develop standard terminology and procedural details. EUS‐specific stents, including lumen‐apposing metal stents have recently become available, and are likely to impact the outcomes of these procedures. Available data show a high success rate and acceptable adverse event rate for EUS‐guided biliary drainage. Success rate appears to be low for pancreatic duct drainage because of a variety of reasons. Outcomes of EUS‐guided biliary drainage appear equivalent to percutaneous drainage and ERCP. EUS‐guided gallbladder drainage appears promising for patients requiring gallbladder drainage but unfit for surgery. Further large controlled studies are needed to evaluate the exact role of these procedures.
Cholestasis, Patient Selection, Pancreatic Ducts, Drainage, Humans, Stents, Ultrasonography, Interventional, Endosonography
Cholestasis, Patient Selection, Pancreatic Ducts, Drainage, Humans, Stents, Ultrasonography, Interventional, Endosonography
| citations This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 115 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 1% | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Top 1% | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 1% |
