Permanent endoscopic transpapillary gallbladder drainage using a novel spiral stent (IYO-stent)

Novel over-the-wire stent exchange technique with a loop cutter for endoscopic transpapillary gallbladder drainage in a complex anatomical case

Watch a video of this article.

Endoscopic transpapillary gallbladder drainage using a novel sphincterotome

Watch a video of this article.

Feasibility of a novel 5F plastic stent in endoscopic transpapillary gallbladder drainage for acute cholecystitis

Background and study aims

Many reports have demonstrated the efficacy of endoscopic transpapillary gallbladder stenting (EGBS) for acute cholecystitis (AC), most of which have traditionally used a 7F plastic stent. The study aim was to evaluate the efficacy of a novel 5F plastic stent in EGBS for AC.

Patients and methods

We designed a retrospective study that compared the outcomes between 7F and 5F stents in patients undergoing EGBS. Among 147 patients who underwent endoscopic transpapillary gallbladder drainage for AC between January 2019 and July 2023, 104 who underwent EGBS using a 7F (n = 53) or 5F (n = 51) plastic stent were included in the analysis.

Results

The technical success rate for EGBS, clinical success rate for AC, and early adverse events (AEs) rate in the 7F and 5F groups were 92.5% vs 100%, 100% vs 98.0%, and 5.7% vs 3.9%, respectively, with no significant differences. However, only in the 7F group, four patients failed stent insertion and three patients developed postprocedure pancreatitis. Furthermore, incidence of hyperamylasemia was lower in the 5F group (24.5% vs 9.8%, P = 0.047). The late AE rate did not differ significantly between the 7F and 5F groups (14.3% vs 10.0%). The median time to late AE was 238 days for the 7F group and 187 days for the 5F group, with no significant difference.

Conclusions

A 5F stent can provide outcomes comparable to those of a 7F stent and help prevent hyperamylasemia.

Interval cholecystectomy following drainage procedures for acute cholecystitis: percutaneous transhepatic vs endoscopic transpapillary gallbladder drainage

BACKGROUND

Gallbladder drainage procedures are often considered for acute cholecystitis (AC) patients with significant peri-operative risks. While percutaneous transhepatic gallbladder drainage (PTGBD) has been evaluated in previous studies, there is scarce data on the feasibility and efficacy of endoscopic transpapillary gallbladder stenting (ETGBS) in patients with AC. This study aimed to compare the characteristics of interval cholecystectomy following ETGBS and PTGBD.

METHODS

This retrospective descriptive study included patients who underwent ETGBS and/or PTGBD for AC and subsequently underwent interval cholecystectomy between 2018 and 2023. Demographics, operative technique, and postoperative complications of patients with ETGBS and PTGBD were compared.

RESULTS

A total of 59 patients were included (14 ETGBS and 45 PTGBD). The median days between ETGBS and cholecystectomy were significantly longer than the PTGBD group (64 [45-150] days vs. 16 [10-42] days, p=0.045). The median operation time was significantly longer in the ETGBS group.　Among 33 patients who underwent subtotal cholecystectomy, the ERGBS group more frequently required closure of the gallbladder stump due to the difficulty in ligating the cystic duct compared to the PTGBD group (75.0% vs. 28.0%, p=0.035). Similarly, the fundus-first approach was more commonly selected in the ERGBS group (62.5% vs. 28.0%, p=0.01). No significant differences in the incidence of postoperative complications were observed between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Interval cholecystectomy following ETGBS is more technically demanding compared to PTGBD. Laparoscopic subtotal cholecystectomy following ETGBS could be a potential treatment option for patients who are unfit for early surgery, with the recognition of the difficulty in ligating the cystic duct.

Endoscopic Gallbladder Drainage Conversion versus Conservative Treatment Following Percutaneous Gallbladder Drainage in High-Risk Surgical Patients

Background/Aims

There are no consensus guidelines for patients with acute cholecystitis undergoing percutaneous cholecystostomy who are unfit for interval cholecystectomy. The current study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of endoscopic gallbladder drainage, i.e. conversion from percutaneous cholecystostomy (including endoscopic transpapillary gallbladder stenting and endoscopic ultrasound-guided gallbladder drainage), and conservative treatment after percutaneous cholecystostomy tube removal.

Methods

This retrospective review included patients who underwent percutaneous cholecystostomy for acute cholecystitis between January 2017 and December 2020. Consecutive patients who underwent endoscopic gallbladder drainage or percutaneous cholecystostomy tube removal without interval cholecystectomy were included. Outcome measures included recurrent acute cholecystitis and unplanned readmission due to gallstone-related diseases.

Results

During the study period, 238 patients were selected (63 underwent endoscopic gallbladder drainage conversion and 175 underwent conservative treatment). Patients who underwent endoscopic gallbladder drainage conversion had lower rates of recurrent acute cholecystitis (3 [4.76%] vs 31 [17.71%], p=0.012) and unplanned readmission due to gallstone-related diseases (6 [9.52%] vs 40 [22.86%], p=0.022) than those who underwent conservative treatment following percutaneous cholecystostomy tube removal. In the univariate and multivariate analyses, calculus cholecystitis (odds ratio, 13.75; 95% confidence interval, 1.83 to 102.83; p=0.011) and conversion of endoscopic gallbladder drainage (odds ratio, 0.23; 95% confidence interval, 0.06 to 0.78; p=0.019) were significant predictive factors for recurrent acute cholecystitis.

Conclusions

Endoscopic gallbladder drainage conversion led to more favorable outcomes than conservative treatment after percutaneous cholecystostomy tube removal. Therefore, endoscopic gallbladder drainage conversion may be considered a promising treatment option for patients undergoing percutaneous cholecystostomy who are at a high surgical risk.

Long-Term Safety, Efficacy, Indications, and Criteria of Arteriovenous Fistula Ligation Following Kidney Transplant: A Patient-Driven Approach

OBJECTIVES

In patients with end-stage renal disease, arteriovenous fistulas are the standard of care to ensure long-term vascular access. Recent studies suggest some long-term posttransplant cardiac benefits and quality of life improvements in kidney transplant recipients due to arteriovenous fistula ligation. However, there are no guidelines regarding arteriovenous fistula management after transplant. Our study objective was to evaluate the long-term safety of arteriovenous fistula ligation and the frequency of returning to hemodialysis after ligation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Retrospective chart review from February 2014 to December 2020 identified 578 adult patients who underwent successful kidney transplant at our center. Of these patients, 47 underwent subsequent arteriovenous fistula ligation. Both medically driven and patient-driven cases were assessed and approved by a transplant nephrology team with regard to allograft function and ligation suitability.

RESULTS

Our results showed that, of the 47 renal transplant patients, 70.2% chose to undergo arteriovenous fistula ligation due to aneurysmal formation, 44.7% due to pain, and 14.9% due to high-output heart failure. In total, 68.1% of arteriovenous fistula ligations performed were primarily patient driven. There was an average follow-up of 2.9 years after ligation, with 1 unrelated reoperation and no returns to dialysis for all patients who underwent arteriovenous fistula ligation.

CONCLUSIONS

In our study, the long-term risks of surgical complications and allograft impairment after ligation were negligible. As a result of our current findings and known positive cardiovascular benefit, patient-driven arteriovenous fistula ligation after kidney transplant should be routinely considered in patients with stable allograft function.