BACKGROUND/AIMS: Biliary stone disease is one of the most common conditions leading to hospitalization. In addition to endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) and magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) are required in diagnosing choledocholithiasis. This study aimed to compare the sensitivity and specificity of EUS and MRCP against ERCP in diagnosing choledocholithiasis. METHODS: This retrospective study was conducted after prospective collection of data involving 62 suspected choledocholithiasis patients who underwent ERCP from June 2013 to August 2014. Patients were divided into two groups. The first group (31 patients) underwent EUS and the second group (31 patients) underwent MRCP. Then, ERCP was performed in both groups. Sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy of EUS and MRCP were determined by comparing them to ERCP, which is the gold standard. RESULTS: The male to female ratio was 3:2. The mean ages were 47.25 years in the first group and 52.9 years in the second group. Sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value for EUS were 96%, 57%, 87%, 88%, and 80% respectively, and for MRCP were 81%, 40%, 68%, 74%, and 50%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: EUS is a better diagnostic tool than MRCP for diagnosing choledocholithiasis.
Cholangiopancreatography, Endoscopic Retrograde* ; Cholangiopancreatography, Magnetic Resonance* ; Choledocholithiasis* ; Endosonography* ; Female ; Hospitalization ; Humans ; Male ; Prospective Studies ; Retrospective Studies ; Sensitivity and Specificity*

Background/Aims: Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) has become an essential diagnostic and therapeutic tool. EUS was introduced in 2013 in Indonesia and is considered relatively new. This study aimed to describe the current role of interventional EUS at our hospital as a part of the Indonesian tertiary health center experience. Methods: This retrospective study included all patients who underwent interventional EUS (n=94) at our center between January 2015 and December 2020. Patient characteristics, technical success, clinical success, and adverse events associated with each type of interventional EUS procedure were evaluated. Results: Altogether, 94 interventional EUS procedures were performed at our center between 2015 and 2020 including 75 cases of EUS-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD), 14 cases of EUS-guided pancreatic fluid drainage, and five cases of EUS-guided celiac plexus neurolysis. The technical and clinical success rates of EUS-BD were 98.6% and 52%, respectively. The technical success rate was 100% for both EUS-guided pancreatic fluid drainage and EUS-guided celiac plexus neurolysis. The adverse event rates were 10.6% and 7.1% for EUS-BD and EUS-guided pancreatic fluid drainage, respectively. Conclusions EUS is an effective and safe tool for the treatment of gastrointestinal and biliary diseases. It has a low rate of adverse events, even in developing countries.