11/26/2010 Endoscopic ultrasound-guided pancreatic duct drainage Nakai Y, Kogure H, Isayama H, Koike K, - Saudi J Gastroenterol
Saudi Journal of Gastroenterology
Home About us Instructions Ahead of print Submission Subscribe Advertise Contact Login    Print this page  Email this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size 
Users Online: 735 

Previous Article  Table of Contents Next Article  
REVIEW ARTICLE  
Year :   |  Volume :   |  Issue :   |  Page :
Endoscopic ultrasound-guided pancreatic duct drainage


1 Department of Gastroenterology, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan
2 Department of Gastroenterology, Graduate School of Medicine, Juntendo University, Tokyo, Japan

Click here for correspondence address and email
Date of Web Publication10-Jan-2019
 

   Abstract 


Endoscopic transpapillary or transanastomotic pancreatic duct drainage (PD) is the mainstay of drainage in symptomatic pancreatic duct obstruction or leakage. However, transpapillary or transanastomotic PD can be technically difficult due to the tight stricture or surgically altered anatomy (SAA), and endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided PD (EUS-PD) is now increasingly used as an alternative technique. There are two approaches in EUS-PD: EUS-guided rendezvous (EUS-RV) and EUS-guided transmural drainage (EUS-TMD). In cases with normal anatomy, EUS-RV should be the first approach, whereas EUS-TMD can be selected in cases with SAA or duodenal obstruction. In our literature review, technical success and adverse event rates were 78.7% and 21.8%, respectively. The technical success rate of EUS-RV appeared lower than EUS-TMD due to the difficulty in guidewire passage. In future, development of dedicated devices and standardization of EUS-PD procedure are necessary.

Keywords: Endoscopic ultrasound, pancreatic duct obstruction, rendezvous, transmural drainage


How to cite this URL:
Nakai Y, Kogure H, Isayama H, Koike K. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided pancreatic duct drainage. Saudi J Gastroenterol [Epub ahead of print] [cited 2019 Jan 16]. Available from: http://www.saudijgastro.com/preprintarticle.asp?id=249848





   Introduction Top


While endoscopic or surgical drainage is available for the management of symptomatic pancreatic duct obstruction or leakage, endoscopic transpapillary (or trans-anastomotic) drainage is often selected as a first-line treatment because of its less invasiveness.[1] However, endoscopic drainage can be technically or anatomically difficult in some cases such as complete pancreatic duct obstruction in chronic pancreatitis, a disconnected duct syndrome after severe acute pancreatitis or pancreatic trauma, duodenal stricture and surgically altered anatomy (SAA). In those difficult cases, surgical,[2] or rarely percutaneous,[3] pancreatic duct drainage (PD) is performed as an alternative method. Recent development of interventional endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)[4] allows an access to various regions such as the biliary tract, pancreatic fluid collections, abdominal abscess and the pancreatic duct, even if endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is difficult.

Access to the pancreatic duct under EUS guidance was reported as EUS-guided pancreatography after failed ERCP, in 1995 by Harada et al.[5] EUS-guided PD (EUS-PD) was first reported as rendezvous (RV) and transmural drainage (TMD) in 2002.[6] Since then, many studies have been published on EUS-PD, with most of these being case reports or case series since EUS-PD is one of the most technically difficult interventional EUS procedures. In this review, we describe a literature review, technical tips, and hurdles and propose an algorithm for EUS-PD.


   Indications Top


The indications and contraindications of EUS-PD are summarized in [Table 1]. The indications for endoscopic PD are pancreatic duct obstruction and pancreatic leakage and disconnected pancreatic duct syndrome. EUS-PD is often attempted after failed ERCP due to various reasons. In cases with normal anatomy, EUS-PD should be attempted after failed ERP. In cases with difficulty due to anatomical reasons such as duodenal obstruction and SAA, EUS-PD can be considered as a first-line treatment option. The contraindications of EUS-PD include no visualization of the pancreatic duct under EUS, intervening vessels, severe coagulopathy and an unstable general condition for endoscopic procedures. In cases with massive ascites, EUS-PD has a risk of pancreatic fistula and peritonitis, and the indications of EUS-PD should be determined carefully in those patients with ascites.
Table 1: Indications and contraindications of endoscopic ultrasound-guided pancreatic duct drainage

Click here to view



   Procedure Variations Top


There are two approaches for EUS-PD: transpapillary (or transanastomotic) RV [EUS-RV, [Figure 1] and TMD [EUS-TMD, [Figure 2]]. The latter included EUS-guided pancreatico-enterostomy and transenteric antegrade stenting.
Figure 1: EUS-guided rendezvous in patient with pancreatic diviusm and surgically altered anatomy. (a) Puncture and pancreatogram. (b) Guidewire passage through the minor papilla into the duodenum. (c) Balloon enteroscope insertion and cannulation over the rendezvous guidewire. (d) Pancreatic stent placement across the minor papilla

Click here to view
Figure 2: EUS-guided transmural pancreatic duct drainage. (a) Puncture and pancreatogram. (b) Guidewire passage through the anastomosis (arrowhead). (c) Balloon dilation of the pancreatico-jejunostomy (arrow). (d) Transmural stent placement between the jejunum and the stomach

Click here to view


In cases with an accessible ampulla or anastomosis, EUS-RV can be selected. EUS-RV is performed as follows: puncture of the pancreatic duct, pancreatogram, guidewire insertion through the ampulla or the anastomosis, scope exchange, ERP using the RV guidewire, and PD. Devices for EUS-TMD should be readily available even if EUS-RV is planned because guidewire passage can be technically impossible during EUS-RV.

In cases with an inaccessible ampulla or anastomosis, or in cases after failed guidewire passage during EUS-RV, EUS-TMD can be performed. The procedure is quite similar to EUS-RV until the step of guidewire insertion: puncture of the pancreatic duct, pancreatogram, guidewire insertion to the pancreatic duct, fistula (and/or stricture) dilation and TMD placement. TMD can be pancreatico-enterostomy (antegrade, retrograde) or transpapillary (or transanastomotic) pancreatico-enterostomy.[4] The former is to put a stent between the pancreatic duct and the gastrointestinal lumen, and the latter is to push the stent end further into the small intestine through the ampulla or the anastomosis.


   Technical Aspects of EUS-PD Top


The details of EUS-PD procedure are well-summarized in two review articles.[7],[8] Due to the small size of the pancreatic duct with side branches and the stricture, the key to successful EUS-PD is puncture of the pancreatic duct and guidewire manipulation. As recommended by Itoi et al.,[7] the use of a 19-gauge fine needle aspiration (FNA) needle with a sharp tip (EZ Shot 3 Plus; Olympus Medical Systems, Tokyo, Japan) and a 0.025-inch guidewire with a flexible tip (VisiGlide2; Olympus Medical Systems) are routinely used in our institution. A 22-gauge needle in combination with a smaller (0.018- or 0.021-inch) guidewire can be used in cases with a small pancreatic duct, but small guidewires are difficult to manipulate even after successful pancreatic duct puncture, and we use a 19-gauge needle even in cases with a nondilated pancreatic duct. Guidewire shearing at the needle tip can occur during guidewire manipulation. To avoid guidewire shearing, gentle guidewire manipulation is mandatory. Guidewire shearing occurs when the guidewire is pulled back. The guidewire should not be just pushed and pulled back and forth to avoid shearing, and the rotation of guidewire with tactile feedback is essential to get into the pancreatic duct and pass the stricture. When there is resistance during the guidewire manipulation, the needle tip should be adjusted, either by pulling slightly back to the pancreatic parenchyma as described in EUS-BD[9] or by releasing the lure lock of the FNA needle, which may change the direction of the bevel of the needle tip.

The selection of the puncture site is also important. Preprocedure contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) and/or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)/magnetic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) are recommended for planning EUS-PD. The size and configuration of the pancreatic duct, the presence of the pancreatic duct stricture and/or pancreatic stones, as well as the presence of intervening vessels should be evaluated. Coronal images of CT scan in addition to the axial images are also helpful to figure out the pancreatic duct configuration. Given the difficulty in guidewire manipulation, the puncture site should be selected based on the distance to the stricture and the angle of the needle and the pancreatic duct in addition to the size of the duct. When the needle and the pancreatic duct are perpendicular, guidewire manipulation and subsequent device insertion can be technically difficult. Therefore, prior to the puncture of the pancreatic duct, the scope and needle angle should be evaluated on fluoroscopy. In SAA patients with gastrectomy, the puncture site is quite limited depending on the size of the remnant stomach. The distance of the pancreas and the stomach should be evaluated on preprocedure CT and MRI. Once the EUS scope is inserted, the stomach is pushed against the pancreas and two organs appear close to each other on EUS but if the pancreatic duct is punctured at the region where the stomach and pancreas are far apart, subsequent device insertion can be extremely difficult and guidewire loss may occur.

Track dilation is performed for EUS-TMD. For track dilation, both cautery and noncautery dilators are available. Tapered noncautery dilators are preferred for track dilation during EUS-PD. A balloon catheter[10] and/or a bougie dilator[11] are used for initial dilation method in our institutions. Cautery dilators may have a risk of bleeding and pancreatitis, and only coaxial cautery dilators should be used. In cases with severe chronic pancreatitis, both the pancreatic parenchyma and the pancreatic duct wall are hard and the use of cautery dilators might be necessary if noncautery dilators cannot be advanced into the pancreatic duct. When track dilation or device insertion is impossible, crossover to EUS-RV should be considered when available.


   Clinical Outcomes of EUS-PD in the Literature Top


Previous reports of EUS-PD including both RV and TMD are summarized in [Table 2]. A total of 517 procedures from 33 studies were reviewed, and the technical success rate was 78.7% and the adverse event rate was 21.8%.
Table 2: Review of endoscopic ultrasound-guided pancreatic duct drainage

Click here to view


The technical success rate of EUS-PD appeared to be lower than that of EUS-BD (>90%).[12],[13] Of 33 studies, EUS-RV was performed in 12 studies, EUS-TMD in 11 studies, and both in 10 studies. When EUS-RV in 12 studies and EUS-TMD in 11 studies were compared, the technical success rates were 55.6% versus 93.8% (P < 0.01), respectively. Shah et al.[14] reported that the initial technical success rates of EUS-RV and EUS-TMD were only 50% and 63%, respectively, but the overall technical success rates increased to 56% and 71% after crossover to EUS-TMD or EUS-RV. EUS-RV appears technically more difficult because of the necessity to guidewire passage and scope exchange. Technical failure is most common in guidewire manipulation during EUS-RV for biliary indications.[15],[16] Therefore, crossover to EUS-TMD should be considered if guidewire passage is impossible.

The adverse event rate of EUS-PD appeared similar to that of EUS-BD (≈20%).[12],[13] Adverse events related to EUS-PD include abdominal pain, pancreatitis, pancreatic leakage, peripancreatic fluid collection, peritonitis, stent dislocation, bleeding and perforation. In EUS-PD, puncture and, sometimes, track dilation through the pancreatic parenchyma are necessary, and most patients who need PD are prone to pancreatitis due to pancreatic duct hypertension. Thus, pancreatitis, pancreatic leakage, and subsequent fluid collection can occur after EUS-PD. Monitoring of physical examination in combination with laboratory tests are recommended, and we routinely perform CT scan on the next day of the procedure to evaluate those possible adverse events.

As shown in [Table 2], most reports were retrospective including case reports and case series, and therefore publication bias might exist. Of note, the technical success and adverse event rates varied significantly even by experts. Therefore, EUS-PD should be performed in expert centers where support from interventional radiologists, surgeons and anesthesiologists is readily available.


   Alternative Approach to EUS-PD Top


Alternative approach to endoscopic drainage is limited for PD compared with biliary drainage. ERCP is the mainstay because of its less invasiveness and, if ERCP failed either technically or clinically, surgical procedure is often performed. However, surgical procedures such as Frey procedure for chronic pancreatitis can be invasive. Reoperation in those with SAA can be technically difficult. While biliary drainage can be performed surgically, percutaneously or endoscopically (ERCP and EUS), percutaneous PD is not routinely performed.[3] Therefore, EUS-PD can be a less invasive alternative approach when ERCP approach fails. However, long-term data of EUS-PD are limited. As previously reported in transpapillary pancreatic duct stent placement, severe pancreatic duct stricture can be refractory to endoscopic stent placement[1] and may need surgical drainage. EUS-guided TMD can adversely affect the surgical procedures because of its inflammation and adhesion. Therefore, the advantages and disadvantages of EUS-guided TMD and surgery should be discussed with patients prior to the procedure. In addition, as described above, percutaneous approach is uncommon for PD. When EUS-BD fails after failed ERCP, percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage can be a salvage technique.[12] However, if PD cannot be achieved, that is, successful pancreatic duct access but failed stent placement, pancreatic leakage may occur and surgical salvage might be necessary.


   Algorithm for Management of Pancreatic Duct Obstruction Top


Our proposal for management of pancreatic duct obstruction is shown in [Figure 3]. In cases with normal anatomy, EUS-RV followed by transpapillary pancreatic stent placement should be attempted first. If guidewire passage fails due to the pancreatic duct stricture or pancreatic stones, EUS-TMD can be temporarily performed. Guidewire passage can be attempted later through the pancreatico-enterostomy after fistula maturation as a two-step procedure similar to EUS-guided antegrade stone treatment.[17] If the reason for failure is pancreatic stone impaction, extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) might be useful, and lithotripsy using a peroral pancreatoscopy through the pancreatico-enterostomy was also reported.[18] Guidewire passage can be technically successful after lithotripsy for impacted pancreatic stones [Figure 4], or PD might be even unnecessary in cases without pancreatic duct strictures.
Figure 3: Algorithm to pancreatic duct obstruction/leakage. EUS: endoscopic ultrasound; RV: Rendezvous; TMD: Transmural drainage

Click here to view
Figure 4: Successful transpapillary drainage after EUS-guided transmural pancreatic duct drainage and ESWL in a case with calcified chronic pancreatitis. (a) EUS-guided rendezvous was attempted but the guidewire passage failed due to stone impaction (arrowhead). (b) EUS-guided transmural pancreatic duct stent was placed. (c) Guidewire passage through the minor papilla (arrow) was eventually successful through pancreatico-gastrostomy route after ESWL. (d) A pancreatic stent was placed across the minor papilla using the rendezvous technique. ESWL: Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy

Click here to view


In cases with SAA, it is still unclear whether we should perform enteroscopy-assisted ERCP or EUS-PD first, and EUS-RV or EUS-TMD first when EUS-PD is performed. There was one retrospective, comparative study of EUS-PD and enteroscopy-assisted ERCP for pancreatic indications in patients after Whipple surgery.[19] A total of 75 procedures (40 EUS-PD and 35 enteroscopy-assisted ERCP) were evaluated, and technical and clinical success rates were significantly higher in EUS-PD: technical success rates of 92.5% and 20% and clinical success rates of 87.5% and 23.1% in EUS-PD and enteroscopy-assisted ERCP, respectively. However, adverse events were more common in EUS-PD: 35% and 2.9%. Technical success rates of enteroscopy-assisted ERCP might vary according to previous surgery and indications (benign vs. recurrent malignancy), and a large-scale data are warranted comparing EUS-PD and enteroscopy-assisted ERCP. While transpapillary or transanastomotic stent placement using enteroscopy-assisted ERCP allows physiological pancreatic juice flow, the insertion of enteroscope can be technically difficult or even impossible. Thus, long-term stent exchange for severe pancreatic duct stricture is necessary; reintervention might be less time-consuming and technically easier in EUS-TMD due to its better access to the site of pancreatic stents than in enteroscopy-assisted ERCP.


   Future Research Top


Most reports of EUS-PD were small, retrospective studies, and obviously we need more data of EUS-PD in prospective studies.[20] Even though EUS-PD has been increasingly reported, the procedure is far from standardization. The consensus guidelines of interventional EUS were recently published,[21] but the evidence levels are low to very low in most statements on EUS-PD. Given the low technical success rate and relatively high adverse event rate, a training model of EUS-PD should be established[22] and a learning curve should be clarified.

The major limitation of EUS-PD is the lack of dedicated devices. For standardization of EUS-PD procedures, development of dedicated devices is essential, but most devices currently used during EUS-PD are originally developed for EUS-FNA and ERCP. Recently, encouraging long-term outcomes of a dedicated plastic stent[23],[24] were reported. In addition, Oh et al.[25] reported the feasibility of covered metal stents in EUS-PD. The use of covered metal stents has been investigated in ERCP approach.[26],[27] While its large diameter appears to have an advantage of better stricture resolution, a covered metal stent placed in the pancreatic duct can potentially occlude side branches of the pancreatic duct and tissue hyperplasia at the proximal stent end is a concern. Therefore, long-term outcomes should be further evaluated to justify the routine use of covered mental stents in EUS-PD.

EUS-guided biliary drainage, which was first introduced as an alternative biliary drainage, is now used as a port for more complex procedures such as antegrade stone extraction,[28] peroral cholangioscope for lithotripsy,[29],[30] or tumor ablation.[31] On the other hand, the indications of EUS-PD are still limited for drainage alone. There are some reports on pancreatoscopy for lithotripsy and stone extraction through EUS-PD fistula.[18] In future, EUS-PD can be used as a port to the pancreas for the management of various pancreatic diseases such as difficult pancreatic stones, guidewire passage through the stricture, tumor diagnosis, and ablation once EUS-PD procedures are established and standardized.


   Summary Top


In summary, EUS-PD should be considered as an alternative method for PD after failed ERCP. However, it is technically demanding, especially guidewire passage during EUS-RV, with a technical success rate of 78.7% and adverse event rate of 21.8%, even when done by experts. Although EUS-PD fistula can potentially be used for advanced procedures such as lithotripsy and tumor ablation, standardization of the procedures and development of dedicated devices are mandatory.[57]

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.



 
   References Top

1.
Rosch T, Daniel S, Scholz M, Huibregtse K, Smits M, Schneider T, et al. Endoscopic treatment of chronic pancreatitis: A multicenter study of 1000 patients with long-term follow-up. Endoscopy 2002;34:765-71.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Cahen DL, Gouma DJ, Nio Y, Rauws EA, Boermeester MA, Busch OR, et al. Endoscopic versus surgical drainage of the pancreatic duct in chronic pancreatitis. N Engl J Med 2007;356:676-84.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Gobien RP, Stanley JH, Anderson MC, Vujic I. Percutaneous drainage of pancreatic duct for treating acute pancreatitis. Am J Roentgenol 1983;141:795-6.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Dhir V, Isayama H, Itoi T, Almadi M, Siripun A, Teoh AY, et al. Endoscopic ultrasonography-guided biliary and pancreatic duct interventions. Dig Endosc 2017;29:472-85.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Harada N, Kouzu T, Arima M, Asano T, Kikuchi T, Isono K. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided pancreatography: A case report. Endoscopy 1995;27:612-5.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Bataille L, Deprez P. A new application for therapeutic EUS: Main pancreatic duct drainage with a “pancreatic rendezvous technique.” Gastrointest Endosc 2002;55:740-3.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Itoi T, Kasuya K, Sofuni A, Itokawa F, Kurihara T, Yasuda I, et al. Endoscopic ultrasonography-guided pancreatic duct access: Techniques and literature review of pancreatography, transmural drainage and rendezvous techniques. Dig Endosc 2013;25:241-52.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Itoi T, Yasuda I, Kurihara T, Itokawa F, Kasuya K. Technique of endoscopic ultrasonography-guided pancreatic duct intervention (with videos). J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci 2014;21:E4-9.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Ogura T, Masuda D, Takeuchi T, Fukunishi S, Higuchi K. Liver impaction technique to prevent shearing of the guidewire during endoscopic ultrasound-guided hepaticogastrostomy. Endoscopy 2015;47:E583-4.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Amano M, Ogura T, Onda S, Takagi W, Sano T, Okuda A, et al. Prospective clinical study of endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage using novel balloon catheter (with video). J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2017;32:716-20.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Kanno Y, Ito K, Koshita S, Ogawa T, Masu K, Masaki Y, et al. Efficacy of a newly developed dilator for endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage. World J Gastrointest Endosc 2017;9:304-9.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Sharaiha RZ, Khan MA, Kamal F, Tyberg A, Tombazzi CR, Ali B, et al. Efficacy and safety of EUS-guided biliary drainage in comparison with percutaneous biliary drainage when ERCP fails: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastrointest Endosc 2017;85:904-14.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Minaga K, Kitano M. Recent advances in endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage. Dig Endosc 2018;30:38-47.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Shah JN, Marson F, Weilert F, Bhat YM, Nguyen-Tang T, Shaw RE, et al. Single-operator, single-session EUS-guided anterograde cholangiopancreatography in failed ERCP or inaccessible papilla. Gastrointest Endosc 2012;75:56-64.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Iwashita T, Yasuda I, Mukai T, Iwata K, Ando N, Doi S, et al. EUS-guided rendezvous for difficult biliary cannulation using a standardized algorithm: A multicenter prospective pilot study (with videos). Gastrointest Endosc 2016;83:394-400.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Tsuchiya T, Itoi T, Sofuni A, Tonozuka R, Mukai S. Endoscopic ultrasonography-guided rendezvous technique. Dig Endosc 2016;28(Suppl. 1):96-101.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
Nakai Y, Isayama H, Koike K. Two-step endoscopic ultrasonography-guided antegrade treatment of a difficult bile duct stone in a surgically altered anatomy patient. Dig Endosc 2018;30:125-7.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
James TW, Baron TH. Antegrade pancreatoscopy via EUS-guided pancreaticogastrostomy allows removal of obstructive pancreatic duct stones. Endosc Int Open 2018;6:E735-8.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.
Chen YI, Levy MJ, Moreels TG, Hajijeva G, Will U, Artifon EL, et al. An international multicenter study comparing EUS-guided pancreatic duct drainage with enteroscopy-assisted endoscopic retrograde pancreatography after Whipple surgery. Gastrointest Endosc 2017;85:170-7.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.
Deviere J. EUS-guided pancreatic duct drainage: A rare indication in need of prospective evidence. Gastrointest Endosc 2017;85:178-80.  Back to cited text no. 20
    
21.
Teoh AY, Dhir V, Kida M, Yasuda I, Jin ZD, Seo DW, et al. Consensus guidelines on the optimal management in interventional EUS procedures: Results from the Asian EUS group RAND/UCLA expert panel. Gut 2018;67:1209-28.  Back to cited text no. 21
    
22.
Dhir V, Itoi T, Pausawasdi N, Khashab MA, Perez-Miranda M, Sun S, et al. Evaluation of a novel, hybrid model (Mumbai EUS II) for stepwise teaching and training in EUS-guided biliary drainage and rendezvous procedures. Endosc Int Open 2017;5:E1087-95.  Back to cited text no. 22
    
23.
Itoi T, Sofuni A, Tsuchiya T, Ishii K, Ikeuchi N, Tanaka R, et al. Initial evaluation of a new plastic pancreatic duct stent for endoscopic ultrasonography-guided placement. Endoscopy 2015;47:462-5.  Back to cited text no. 23
    
24.
Matsunami Y, Itoi T, Sofuni A, Tsuchiya T, Kamada K, Tanaka R, et al. Evaluation of a new stent for EUS-guided pancreatic duct drainage: Long-term follow-up outcome. Endosc Int Open 2018;6:E505-12.  Back to cited text no. 24
    
25.
Oh D, Park DH, Cho MK, Nam K, Song TJ, Lee SS, et al. Feasibility and safety of a fully covered self-expandable metal stent with antimigration properties for EUS-guided pancreatic duct drainage: Early and midterm outcomes (with video). Gastrointest Endosc 2016;83:366-73e2.  Back to cited text no. 25
    
26.
Matsubara S, Sasahira N, Isayama H, Takahara N, Mizuno S, Kogure H, et al. Prospective pilot study of fully covered self-expandable metal stents for refractory benign pancreatic duct strictures: Long-term outcomes. Endosc Int Open 2016;4:E1215-22.  Back to cited text no. 26
    
27.
Oh D, Lee JH, Song TJ, Park DH, Lee SK, Kim MH, et al. Long-term outcomes of 6-mm diameter fully covered self-expandable metal stents in benign refractory pancreatic ductal stricture. Dig Endosc 2018;30:508-15.  Back to cited text no. 27
    
28.
Iwashita T, Nakai Y, Hara K, Isayama H, Itoi T, Park do H. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided antegrade treatment of bile duct stone in patients with surgically altered anatomy: A multicenter retrospective cohort study. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci 2016;23:227-33.  Back to cited text no. 28
    
29.
Hosmer A, Abdelfatah MM, Law R, Baron TH. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided hepaticogastrostomy and antegrade clearance of biliary lithiasis in patients with surgically-altered anatomy. Endosc Int Open 2018;6:E127-30.  Back to cited text no. 29
    
30.
Mukai S, Itoi T, Sofuni A, Tsuchiya T, Tanaka R, Tonozuka R, et al. EUS-guided antegrade intervention for benign biliary diseases in patients with surgically altered anatomy (with videos). Gastrointest Endosc 2018;pii: S0016-5107:32897-9.  Back to cited text no. 30
    
31.
Eum J, Park DH, Ryu CH, Kim HJ, Lee SS, Seo DW, et al. EUS-guided biliary drainage with a fully covered metal stent as a novel route for natural orifice transluminal endoscopic biliary interventions: A pilot study (with videos). Gastrointest Endosc 2010;72:1279-84.  Back to cited text no. 31
    
32.
Francois E, Kahaleh M, Giovannini M, Matos C, Deviere J. EUS-guided pancreaticogastrostomy. Gastrointest Endosc 2002;56:128-33.  Back to cited text no. 32
    
33.
Kahaleh M, Yoshida C, Yeaton P. EUS antegrade pancreatography with gastropancreatic duct stent placement: Review of two cases. Gastrointest Endosc 2003;58:919-23.  Back to cited text no. 33
    
34.
Mallery S, Matlock J, Freeman ML. EUS-guided rendezvous drainage of obstructed biliary and pancreatic ducts: Report of 6 cases. Gastrointest Endosc 2004;59:100-7.  Back to cited text no. 34
    
35.
Will U, Meyer F, Manger T, Wanzar I. Endoscopic ultrasound-assisted rendezvous maneuver to achieve pancreatic duct drainage in obstructive chronic pancreatitis. Endoscopy 2005;37:171-3.  Back to cited text no. 35
    
36.
Kahaleh M, Hernandez AJ, Tokar J, Adams RB, Shami VM, Yeaton P. EUS-guided pancreaticogastrostomy: Analysis of its efficacy to drain inaccessible pancreatic ducts. Gastrointest Endosc 2007;65:224-30.  Back to cited text no. 36
    
37.
Papachristou GI, Gleeson FC, Petersen BT, Levy MJ. Pancreatic endoscopic ultrasound-assisted rendezvous procedure to facilitate drainage of nondilated pancreatic ducts. Endoscopy 2007;39(Suppl. 1):E324-5.  Back to cited text no. 37
    
38.
Tessier G, Bories E, Arvanitakis M, Hittelet A, Pesenti C, Le Moine O, et al. EUS-guided pancreatogastrostomy and pancreatobulbostomy for the treatment of pain in patients with pancreatic ductal dilatation inaccessible for transpapillary endoscopic therapy. Gastrointest Endosc 2007;65:233-41.  Back to cited text no. 38
    
39.
Will U, Fueldner F, Thieme AK, Goldmann B, Gerlach R, Wanzar I, et al. Transgastric pancreatography and EUS-guided drainage of the pancreatic duct. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg 2007;14:377-82.  Back to cited text no. 39
    
40.
Keenan J, Mallery S, Freeman ML. EUS rendezvous for pancreatic stent placement during endoscopic snare ampullectomy. Gastrointest Endosc 2007;66:850-3.  Back to cited text no. 40
    
41.
Gleeson FC, Pelaez MC, Petersen BT, Levy MJ. Drainage of an inaccessible main pancreatic duct via EUS-guided transgastric stenting through the minor papilla. Endoscopy 2007;39(Suppl. 1):E313-4.  Back to cited text no. 41
    
42.
Saftoiu A, Dumitrescu D, Stoica M, Gheonea DI, Ciurea T, Georgescu A, et al. EUS-assisted rendezvous stenting of the pancreatic duct for chronic calcifying pancreatitis with multiple pseudocysts. Pancreatology 2007;7:74-9.  Back to cited text no. 42
    
43.
Brauer BC, Chen YK, Fukami N, Shah RJ. Single-operator EUS-guided cholangiopancreatography for difficult pancreaticobiliary access (with video). Gastrointest Endosc 2009;70:471-9.  Back to cited text no. 43
    
44.
Kinney TP, Li R, Gupta K, Mallery S, Hunter D, Jensen E, et al. Therapeutic pancreatic endoscopy after Whipple resection requires rendezvous access. Endoscopy 2009;41:898-901.  Back to cited text no. 44
    
45.
Barkay O, Sherman S, McHenry L, Yoo BM, Fogel EL, Watkins JL, et al. Therapeutic EUS-assisted endoscopic retrograde pancreatography after failed pancreatic duct cannulation at ERCP. Gastrointest Endosc 2010;71:1166-73.  Back to cited text no. 45
    
46.
Cooper ST, Malick J, McGrath K, Slivka A, Sanders MK. EUS-guided rendezvous for the treatment of pancreaticopleural fistula in a patient with chronic pancreatitis and pancreas pseudodivisum. Gastrointest Endosc 2010;71:652-4.  Back to cited text no. 46
    
47.
Ergun M, Aouattah T, Gillain C, Gigot JF, Hubert C, Deprez PH. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided transluminal drainage of pancreatic duct obstruction: Long-term outcome. Endoscopy 2011;43:518-25.  Back to cited text no. 47
    
48.
Itoi T, Kikuyama M, Ishii K, Matsumura K, Sofuni A, Itokawa F. EUS-guided rendezvous with single-balloon enteroscopy for treatment of stenotic pancreaticojejunal anastomosis in post-Whipple patients (with video). Gastrointest Endosc 2011;73:398-401.  Back to cited text no. 48
    
49.
Kikuyama M, Itoi T, Ota Y, Matsumura K, Tsuchiya T, Itokawa F, et al. Therapeutic endoscopy for stenotic pancreatodigestive tract anastomosis after pancreatoduodenectomy (with videos). Gastrointest Endosc 2011;73:376-82.  Back to cited text no. 49
    
50.
Vila JJ, Perez-Miranda M, Vazquez-Sequeiros E, Abadia MA, Perez-Millan A, Gonzalez-Huix F, et al. Initial experience with EUS-guided cholangiopancreatography for biliary and pancreatic duct drainage: A Spanish national survey. Gastrointest Endosc 2012;76:1133-41.  Back to cited text no. 50
    
51.
Fujii LL, Topazian MD, Abu Dayyeh BK, Baron TH, Chari ST, Farnell MB, et al. EUS-guided pancreatic duct intervention: Outcomes of a single tertiary-care referral center experience. Gastrointest Endosc 2013;78:854-64 e1.  Back to cited text no. 51
    
52.
Kurihara T, Itoi T, Sofuni A, Itokawa F, Moriyasu F. Endoscopic ultrasonography-guided pancreatic duct drainage after failed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in patients with malignant and benign pancreatic duct obstructions. Dig Endosc 2013;25(Suppl. 2):109-16.  Back to cited text no. 52
    
53.
Takikawa T, Kanno A, Masamune A, Hamada S, Nakano E, Miura S, et al. Pancreatic duct drainage using EUS-guided rendezvous technique for stenotic pancreaticojejunostomy. World J Gastroenterol 2013;19:5182-6.  Back to cited text no. 53
    
54.
Will U, Reichel A, Fueldner F, Meyer F. Endoscopic ultrasonography-guided drainage for patients with symptomatic obstruction and enlargement of the pancreatic duct. World J Gastroenterol 2015;21:13140-51.  Back to cited text no. 54
    
55.
Nakai Y, Isayama H, Umefune G, Mizuno S, Kogure H, Yamamoto N, et al. Percutaneous transhepatic cholangioscopy-assisted repositioning of misplaced endoscopic ultrasound-guided pancreatic duct stent. Endoscopy 2016;48(Suppl. 1):E129-30.  Back to cited text no. 55
    
56.
Tyberg A, Sharaiha RZ, Kedia P, Kumta N, Gaidhane M, Artifon E, et al. EUS-guided pancreatic drainage for pancreatic strictures after failed ERCP: A multicenter international collaborative study. Gastrointest Endosc 2017;85:164-9.  Back to cited text no. 56
    
57.
Uchida D, Kato H, Saragai Y, Takada S, Mizukawa S, Muro S, et al. Indications for endoscopic ultrasound-guided pancreatic drainage: for benign or malignant cases? Can J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2018;2018:8216109.  Back to cited text no. 57
    

Top
Correspondence Address:
Yousuke Nakai,
Department of Gastroenterology, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, 7-3-1 Hongo Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo - 113-8655
Japan
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/sjg.SJG_474_18

PMID: 30632484



    Figures

  [Figure 1], [Figure 2], [Figure 3], [Figure 4]
 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2]



 

Top
Previous Article   Next Article
 
  Search
 
  Ahead Of Print
  
     Search Pubmed for
 
    -  Nakai Y
    -  Kogure H
    -  Isayama H
    -  Koike K
        PDF Version


    Abstract
   Introduction
   Indications
   Procedure Variations
    Technical Aspect...
    Clinical Outcome...
    Alternative Appr...
    Algorithm for Ma...
   Future Research
   Summary
    References
    Article Figures
    Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed10    
    PDF Downloaded0    

Recommend this journal