Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography-guided Biliary Drainage with Duckbill-type Anti-reflux Metal Stent versus Endoscopic Ultrasound-guided Hepaticogastrostomy for Malignant Distal Biliary Obstruction in Pancreatic Cancer with Duodenal Invasion
- Tsuyoshi Takeda 1, Takashi Sasaki 1, Tatsuki Hirai 1, Yoichiro Sato 1, Yuri Maegawa 1, Takafumi Mie 1, Takaaki Furukawa 1, Yukari Suzuki 1, Takeshi Okamoto 1, Masato Ozaka 1, Naoki Sasahira 1
- 1Department of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Medicine Cancer Institute Hospital of Japanese Foundation for Cancer Research Tokyo Japan.
- 0Department of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Medicine Cancer Institute Hospital of Japanese Foundation for Cancer Research Tokyo Japan.
Related Experiment Videos
Contact us if these videos are not relevant.
Contact us if these videos are not relevant.
View abstract on PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.Transpapillary biliary drainage with anti-reflux metal stents (ARMS) and endoscopic ultrasound-guided hepaticogastrostomy (EUS-HGS) showed comparable outcomes for managing malignant distal biliary obstruction (MDBO) in patients with duodenal invasion. D-ARMS is a viable option, particularly in non-high-volume centers.
Area Of Science
- Gastroenterology
- Interventional Endoscopy
- Oncology
Background
- Duodenal invasion in pancreatic cancer increases the risk of recurrent biliary obstruction (RBO) due to duodenobiliary reflux.
- Transpapillary biliary drainage with anti-reflux metal stents (ARMS) and endoscopic ultrasound-guided hepaticogastrostomy (EUS-HGS) are key management strategies.
Purpose Of The Study
- To compare the efficacy and safety of duckbill-type ARMS (D-ARMS) versus EUS-HGS in managing malignant distal biliary obstruction (MDBO) in patients with duodenal invasion.
Main Methods
- Retrospective review of unresectable pancreatic cancer patients with duodenal invasion undergoing D-ARMS or EUS-HGS.
- Comparison of technical/clinical success, RBO causes, adverse events (AEs), time to RBO (TRBO), and endoscopic reintervention (ERI).
Main Results
- No significant differences in technical/clinical success rates between D-ARMS (n=22) and EUS-HGS (n=22).
- Non-RBO AE rates were 9.1% for D-ARMS vs. 36.4% for EUS-HGS (p=0.069).
- Overall RBO rates, median TRBO, and ERI outcomes were comparable between groups.
Conclusions
- Transpapillary biliary drainage using D-ARMS is a viable option for MDBO with duodenal invasion.
- D-ARMS may be particularly suitable for non-high-volume centers when technically feasible.
Related Experiment Videos
Contact us if these videos are not relevant.
Contact us if these videos are not relevant.

