Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2022 Oct 20;12(10):1646.
doi: 10.3390/life12101646.

Comparison between Enteroscopy-, Laparoscopy- and Endoscopic Ultrasound-Assisted Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangio-Pancreatography in Patients with Surgically Altered Anatomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Paraskevas Gkolfakis  1 , Apostolis Papaefthymiou  2 , Antonio Facciorusso  3 , Georgios Tziatzios  4 , Daryl Ramai  5 , Spyridon Dritsas  6 , Theodosia Florou  7 , Ioannis S Papanikolaou  4 , Cesare Hassan  8 , Alessandro Repici  8 , Konstantinos Triantafyllou  4 , Lars Aabakken  9 , Jacques Devière  1 , Torsten Beyna  10 , Marianna Arvanitakis  1
Affiliations
Review

Comparison between Enteroscopy-, Laparoscopy- and Endoscopic Ultrasound-Assisted Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangio-Pancreatography in Patients with Surgically Altered Anatomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Paraskevas Gkolfakis et al. Life (Basel). .

Abstract

Background and aims: Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), in surgically altered anatomy (SAA), can be challenging and the optimal technique selection remains debatable. Most common foregut interventions resulting to this burden consist of Billroth II gastrectomy, Whipple surgery and Roux-en-Y anastomoses, including gastric by-pass. This systematic review, with meta-analysis, aimed to compare the rates of successful enteroscope-assisted (EA)-, endosonography-directed transgastric- (EDGE), and laparoscopy-assisted (LA)-ERCP.

Methods: A systematic research (Medline) was performed for relative studies, through January 2022. The primary outcome was technical success, defined as approaching the ampulla site. Secondary outcomes included the desired duct cannulation, successful therapeutic manipulations, and complication rates. We performed meta-analyses of pooled data, and subgroup analysis considering the EA-ERCP subtypes (spiral-, double and single balloon-enteroscope). Pooled rates are reported as percentages with 95% Confidence Intervals (95%CIs).

Results: Seventy-six studies were included (3569 procedures). Regarding primary outcome, EA-ERCP was the least effective [87.3% (95%CI: 85.3-89.4); I2: 91.0%], whereas EDGE and LA-ERCP succeeded in 97.9% (95%CI: 96.4-99.4; I2: 0%) and 99.1% (95%CI: 98.6-99.7; I2: 0%), respectively. Similarly, duct cannulation and therapeutic success rates were 74.7% (95%CI: 71.3-78.0; I2: 86.9%) and 69.1% (95%CI: 65.3-72.9; I2: 91.8%) after EA-ERCP, 98% (95%CI: 96.5-99.6; I2: 0%) and 97.9% (95%CI: 96.3-99.4) after EDGE, and 98.6% (95%CI: 97.9-99.2; I2: 0%) and 98.5% (95%CI: 97.8-99.2; I2: 0%) after LA-ERCP, respectively. The noticed high heterogeneity in EA-ERCP results probably reflects the larger number of included studies, the different enteroscopy modalities and the variety of surgical interventions. Comparisons revealed the superiority of LA-ERCP and EDGE over EA-ERCP (p ≤ 0.001) for all success-related outcomes, though LA-ERCP and EDGE were comparable (p ≥ 0.43). ERCP with spiral-enteroscope was inferior to balloon-enteroscope, while the type of the balloon-enteroscope did not affect the results. Most adverse events were recorded after LA-ERCP [15.1% (95%CI: 9.40-20.8); I2: 87.1%], and EDGE [13.1% (95%CI: 7.50-18.8); I2: 48.2%], significantly differing from EA-ERCP [5.7% (95%CI: 4.50-6.80); p ≤ 0.04; I2: 64.2%].

Conclusions: LA-ERCP and EDGE were associated with higher technical, cannulation, and therapeutic success compared to EA-ERCP, though accompanied with more adverse events.

Keywords: Billroth; EDGE; ERCP; RYGB; Roux-n-Y; balloon enteroscopy; enteroscopy; laparoscopy.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Literature research and study selection algorithm based on PRISMA guidelines.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Forest plots reporting pooled results of the meta-analysis concerning technical success of (a) EA-ERCP, (b) EDGE, and (c) LA-ERCP.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Hasan M.Y., Lomanto D., Loh L.L., So J.B.Y., Shabbir A. Gallstone Disease After Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy in an Asian Population—What Proportion of Gallstones Actually Becomes Symptomatic? Obes. Surg. 2017;27:2419–2423. doi: 10.1007/s11695-017-2657-y. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Nagem R.G., Lázaro-da-Silva A., de Oliveira R.M., Morato V.G. Gallstone-Related Complications after Roux-En-Y Gastric Bypass: A Prospective Study. Hepatobiliary Pancreat. Dis. Int. 2012;11:630–635. doi: 10.1016/S1499-3872(12)60236-7. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Chen Y., Li Y. Related Factors of Postoperative Gallstone Formation after Distal Gastrectomy: A Meta-Analysis. Indian J. Cancer. 2017;54:43–46. doi: 10.4103/ijc.IJC_91_17. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Mishra T., Lakshmi K.K., Peddi K.K. Prevalence of Cholelithiasis and Choledocholithiasis in Morbidly Obese South Indian Patients and the Further Development of Biliary Calculus Disease After Sleeve Gastrectomy, Gastric Bypass and Mini Gastric Bypass. Obes. Surg. 2016;26:2411–2417. doi: 10.1007/s11695-016-2113-4. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Groot V.P., Rezaee N., Wu W., Cameron J.L., Fishman E.K., Hruban R.H., Weiss M.J., Zheng L., Wolfgang C.L., He J. Patterns, Timing, and Predictors of Recurrence Following Pancreatectomy for Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma. Ann. Surg. 2018;267:936–945. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000002234. - DOI - PubMed