Related Experiment Video
Updated: Mar 17, 2026

Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Biliary Drainage: Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Hepaticogastrostomy in Malignant Biliary Obstruction
Published on: March 25, 2022
Electrocautery vs non-electrocautery dilation catheters in endoscopic ultrasonography-guided pancreatic fluid
Katsuya Kitamura1, Akira Yamamiya1, Yu Ishii1
1Katsuya Kitamura, Akira Yamamiya, Yu Ishii, Tomohiro Nomoto, Tadashi Honma, Hitoshi Yoshida, Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, Showa University School of Medicine, Tokyo 142-8666, Japan.
Aim:
To investigate the safety and utility of an electrocautery dilation catheter for endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS)-guided pancreatic fluid collection drainage.
Methods:
A single-center, exploratory, retrospective study was conducted between August 2010 and August 2014. This study was approved by the Medical Ethics Committee of our institution. Informed, written consent was obtained from each patient prior to the procedure. The subjects included 28 consecutive patients who underwent EUS-guided transmural drainage (EUS-TD) for symptomatic pancreatic and peripancreatic fluid collections (PFCs) by fine needle aspiration using a 19-gauge needle. These patients were retrospectively divided into two groups based on the use of an electrocautery dilation catheter as a fistula dilation device; 15 patients were treated with an electrocautery dilation catheter (electrocautery group), and 13 patients were treated with a non-electrocautery dilation catheter (non-electrocautery group). We evaluated the technical and clinical successes and the adverse events associated with EUS-TD for the treatment of PFCs between the two groups.
Results:
There were no significant differences in age, sex, type, location and diameter of PFCs between the groups. Thirteen patients (87%) in the electrocautery group and 10 patients (77%) in the non-electrocautery group presented with infected PFCs. The technical success rates of EUS-TD for the treatment of PFCs were 100% (15/15) and 100% (13/13) for the electrocautery and the non-electrocautery groups, respectively. The clinical success rates of EUS-TD for the treatment of PFCs were 67% (10/15) and 69% (9/13) for the electrocautery and the non-electrocautery groups, respectively (P = 0.794). The procedure time of EUS-TD for the treatment of PFCs in the electrocautery group was significantly shorter than that of the non-electrocautery group (mean ± SD: 30 ± 12 min vs 52 ± 20 min, P < 0.001). Adverse events associated with EUS-TD for the treatment of PFCs occurred in 0 patients and 1 patient for the electrocautery and the non-electrocautery groups, respectively (P = 0.942).
Conclusion:
EUS-TD using an electrocautery dilation catheter as a fistula dilation device for the treatment of symptomatic PFCs appears safe and contributes to a shorter procedure time.
Related Concept Videos
Endoscopic Procedures V: ERCP
Patient...
Ultrasound II: Endoscopic Ultrasound and FibroScan
Endoscopic Ultrasound (EUS):
Endoscopic Studies II: Thoracocentesis
Description
Excess pleural fluid or air may accumulate in some respiratory disorders in the thoracic cavity. To treat pleural effusion, a physician conducts thoracentesis by carefully piercing the chest wall and entering...
Urologic Endoscopic Procedure: Cystoscopic Examination