Current trends of minimally invasive therapy for cholecystocholedocholithiasis

Introduction

The minimally invasive approach of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided procedures for cholecystocholedocholithiasis, such as EUS-guided gallbladder drainage (EUS-GBD), EUS-guided rendezvous (EUS-RV), and EUS-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD), is affirmed as an effective treatment for patients with acute cholecystitis (AC) who are unfit for surgery and for patients with common bile duct stones (CBDSs) who have experienced a previous ERCP failure. Furthermore, in cases of difficult CBDS extraction during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), cholangioscopy-guided electrohydraulic lithotripsy (CS-EHL) has showed optimal results. The main objective of our study was to evaluate the effectiveness of EUS-GBD and percutaneous gallbladder drainage (PT-GBD) in patients with AC who are unfit for surgery. We also aimed to evaluate the efficacy of EUS-GBD, EUS-BD, and EUS-RV following ERCP failure and the effectiveness of CS-EHL for difficult CBDS extraction in our hospital. The secondary aim was to examine the safety of these procedures.

Materials and methods

We conducted a retrospective evaluation of all the EUS-GBD, PT-GBD, EUS-BD, EUS-RV, and CS-EHL procedures, which were prospectively collected in the gastroenterology and digestive endoscopy unit and the general surgery unit from January 2020 to June 2023. The efficacy was expressed in terms of technical and clinical success rates, while safety was assessed based on the rate of adverse events (AEs).

Results

We enrolled 83 patients with AC and high surgical risk. Among them, 57 patients (68.7%, 24/57 male, median age 85 ± 11 years) underwent EUS-GBD, and 26 (31.3%, 19/26 male, median age 83 ± 7 years) underwent PT-GBD. The technical and clinical success rates were 96.5 and 100% for EUS-GBD, and 96.1 and 92% for PT-GBD. The AEs for EUS-GBD were 1.7%, and for PT-GBD, it was 12%. ERCP for CBDS extraction failed in 77 patients. Among them, 73 patients (94.8%) underwent EUS-RV with technical and clinical success rates of 72.6% (53/73) and 100%, respectively. No AEs were reported. Four out of 77 patients were directly treated with EUS-BD for pyloric inflammatory stenosis. In 12 patients (16.4%), following unsuccessful EUS-RV with a CBD diameter ≥ 12 mm, an EUS-BD was performed. Both technical and clinical success rates for EUS-BD were 100%, and no AEs were reported. EUS-GBD was the treatment of choice for the remaining 8 (10.9%) patients after failure of both ERCP and EUS-RV. The procedure had high technical and clinical success rates (both at 100%), and no AEs were reported. The 12 difficult CBDS extraction treated with CS-EHL also showed high technical and clinical success rates (both at 100%), with no reported AEs.

Conclusion

The minimally invasive approach for cholecystocholedocholithiasis, especially EUS-guided procedures, had high efficacy and safety in treating AC in high-risk surgical patients and CBDS extraction after a previously unsuccessful ERCP.

A Rare Case of Delayed Perigastric Abscess after Curative Resection of Early Gastric Cancer by Uncomplicated Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection: Successful Treatment with Endoscopic Ultrasound-guided Drainage

A 72-year-old man had undergone uncomplicated endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) with en bloc resection of a localized 20-mm IIc lesion in the anterior wall of the gastric angle. Twenty-eight days later, he was re-admitted with epigastric pain of one-week duration. Contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) revealed a 60-mm mass bordered by viscera; repeat endoscopy confirmed a smooth elevated submucosal tumor at the greater curvature on the oral side of the post-ESD ulcer. We diagnosed him with a perigastric abscess as a complication of ESD and performed endoscopic ultrasound-guided drainage. Subsequently, the symptoms and blood inflammatory parameters improved, and follow-up CT showed the disappearance of the abscess.

GRUPUGE Perspective: Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Drainage of Peripancreatic Collections

Pancreatic and peripancreatic collections (PPC) are a known complication of acute pancreatitis. They are categorized into four types of collection: (1) acute peripancreatic fluid collection, (2) pseudocyst, (3) acute necrotic collection and (4) walled-off necrosis. Most PPC resolve spontaneously or are persistent but asymptomatic. Intervention is needed in a minority of patients with infected or symptomatic collection. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided transmural drainage is currently the first-line treatment option for PPC management. It has shown great technical and clinical success, similar to percutaneous or surgical approaches, but with lower morbidity and costs and better quality of life. In this review article, the GRUPUGE presents an updated perspective on the potential role of endoscopic ultrasound-guided drainage of peripancreatic collections, addressing the selection criteria and the technical issues of different techniques and analysing emerging data on their efficacy and safety.

Effectiveness of endoscopic ultrasound-guided drainage for noncapsulated postoperative pancreatic collection

BACKGROUND

Postoperative pancreatic collection (POPC) is a frequent complication after pancreatectomy. Although percutaneous drainage (PD) has been the treatment of choice for POPC with encapsulation, endoscopic ultrasound-guided transmural drainage (EUS-TD) was recently reported effective for this condition. The main aim of this retrospective study was to compare EUS-TD and PD in terms of effectiveness and safety as the first procedure in patients with noncapsulated POPC.

METHODS

Consecutive patients who underwent pancreatectomy and developed noncapsulated POPC requiring EUS-TD or PD between April 2003 and May 2018 were enrolled. Noncapsulated POPC was defined as pancreatic collection appearing within 28 days postoperatively and lacking a thick encapsulating inflammatory wall on contrast-enhanced computed tomography. The effectiveness of drainage was compared between the two groups before and after propensity-score matching of patient characteristics. Outcomes of interest included re-intervention rate, number of re-interventions, immediate complication, remote complication, and time to clinical resolution after the procedure.

RESULTS

A sum of 81 patients were included: 14 underwent EUS-TD, and 67 underwent PD. There were significant differences between groups in POPC size and type of surgery. Propensity-score matching selected 13 patients who underwent EUS-TD and 28 who underwent PD. Re-intervention rate (p = 0.045), and number of re-interventions (p = 0.026) were significantly lower in the matched EUS-TD group than in the matched PD group. There were no significant between-group differences in immediate complication and remote complication. The time to clinical resolution after the procedure was significantly shorter in the matched EUS-TD than in the matched PD group (14 versus 26 days; p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

EUS-TD is more effective than PD for drainage of noncapsulated POPC. EUS-TD should be considered as the first treatment of choice for noncapsulated POPC visible on EUS.

Radical treatment for walled-off necrosis: Transmural nasocyst continuous irrigation

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Treatment efficiency of walled-off necrosis (WON) using endoscopic ultrasound-guided drainage (EUS-D) with a double pigtail stent (DPS) is limited. Endoscopic necrosectomy is often carried out if EUS-D fails. However, endoscopic necrosectomy is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Thus, we developed transmural nasocyst continuous irrigation (TNCCI) as an alternative therapeutic option for WON. This study aimed to evaluate the usefulness of TNCCI therapy for WON.

METHODS

Between April 2009 and March 2018, 19 of 39 patients admitted with WON underwent EUS-D. Ten consecutive patients also received TNCCI therapy (TNCCI group) between May 2015 and March 2018. TNCCI was carried out by inserting an external tube from the gastroduodenal lumen into the WON under endoscopic ultrasonography guidance and then continuously irrigating the WON with saline at a rate of 40 ml/h. Nine consecutive patients who underwent EUS-D without TNCCI therapy between April 2009 and April 2015 were used for comparison (control group). Various parameters were compared between the TNCCI and control groups.

RESULTS

Time taken to reduce WON (6 vs 32 days, P = 0.001), implementation rate of endoscopic necrosectomy (0% vs 55.6%, P = 0.01), and number of endoscopic necrosectomy sessions per patient (0 vs 0.8 ± 1.0, P = 0.008) were significantly lower in the TNCCI group than in the control group.

CONCLUSIONS

Walled-off necrosis can be effectively and safely treated by endoscopic drainage with a DPS and TNCCI. This technique can be an alternative therapeutic option before carrying out endoscopic necrosectomy.

Postoperative abdominal collections drainage: Percutaneous versus guided by endoscopic ultrasound

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Postoperative fluid collections (POFC) have high mortality. Percutaneous drainage (PD) is the preferred treatment modality. Drainage guided by endoscopic ultrasound (EUS-GD) represents a good alternative. The aim of the present study was to compare clinical success and complication rates of EUS-GD versus PD.

METHODS

Data collected prospectively were analyzed in a retrospective manner. Patients with POFC from October 2008 to November 2013 were included. All collections were drained percutaneously or by EUS-GD.

RESULTS

Sixty-three procedures in 43 patients with POFC were analyzed; 13 patients were drained using EUS-GD and 32 patients with PD. Two patients assigned initially to the PD group were reassigned to EUS-GD. Surgery procedures most often related to the collections were intestinal reconnection, distal pancreatectomy, biliary-digestive bypass, and exploratory laparotomy. Technical success (100% vs 91%; P = 0.25), clinical success (100% vs 84%; P = 0.13), recurrence (31% vs 25%; P = 0.69), hospital stay days (median 22 vs 27; P = 0.35), total costs (8328 ± 1600 USD vs 11 047 ± 1206 USD; P = 0.21), complications (0% vs 6%; P = 0.3), and mortality (8% vs 6%; P = 0.9) were each evaluated in the EUS-GD and PD groups, respectively. In the PD group one death was related to the procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

EUS-GD is as effective and safe as PD in patients with POFC. The advantage of not requiring external drainage and a trend to higher clinical success and lower total costs must be considered.