Background/Aims: The aim of this study was to evaluate outcomes of inside plastic stents (iPSs) versus those of metal stents (MSs) for treating unresectable perihilar malignant obstructions. Methods: For all patients who underwent endoscopic suprapapillary placement of iPS(s) or MS(s) as the first permanent biliary drainage for unresectable malignant perihilar obstructions between January 2014 and August 2019, clinical outcomes using iPSs (n=20) and MSs (n=85), including clinical efficacy, adverse events, and time to recurrence of biliary obstruction (RBO), were retrospectively evaluated. Results: There were no differences in clinical effectiveness (95% for the iPS group vs. 92% for the MS group, p=1.00). Procedure-related adverse events, including pancreatitis, acute cholangitis, acute cholecystitis, and death, were observed for 8% of the MS group, although no patient in the iPS group developed such adverse events. The median time to RBO was 561 days (95% confidence interval, 0–1,186 days) for iPSs and 209 days (127–291 days) for MSs, showing a significant difference (p=0.008). Conclusions Time to RBO after iPS placement was significantly longer than that after MS placement. IPSs, which are removable, unlike MSs, were an acceptable option.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: It is often difficult to manage acute cholecystitis after metal stent (MS) placement in unresectable malignant biliary strictures. The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of endoscopic ultrasonography-guided gallbladder drainage (EUS-GBD) for acute cholecystitis. METHODS: The clinical outcomes of 10 patients who underwent EUS-GBD for acute cholecystitis after MS placement between January 2011 and August 2018 were retrospectively evaluated. The procedural outcomes of percutaneous transhepatic gallbladder drainage (PTGBD) with tube placement (n=11 cases) and aspiration (PTGBA) (n=27 cases) during the study period were evaluated as a reference. RESULTS: The technical success and clinical effectiveness rates of EUS-GBD were 90% (9/10) and 89% (8/9), respectively. Severe bile leakage that required surgical treatment occurred in one case. Acute cholecystitis recurred after stent dislocation in 38% (3/8) of the cases. Both PTGBD and PTGBA were technically successful in all cases without severe adverse events and clinically effective in 91% and 63% of the cases, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: EUS-GBD after MS placement was a feasible option for treating acute cholecystitis. However, it was a rescue technique following the established percutaneous intervention in the current setting because of the immature technical methodology, including dedicated devices, which need further development.
Bile ; Cholecystitis, Acute ; Constriction, Pathologic ; Dislocations ; Drainage ; Gallbladder ; Humans ; Retrospective Studies ; Stents ; Treatment Outcome

Background/Aims: Endoscopic biliary drainage using self-expandable metallic stents (SEMSs) for malignant biliary strictures occasionally induces acute cholecystitis (AC). This study evaluated the efficacy of prophylactic gallbladder stents (GBS) during SEMS placement. Methods: Among 158 patients who underwent SEMS placement for malignant biliary strictures between January 2018 and March 2023, 30 patients who attempted to undergo prophylactic GBS placement before SEMS placement were included. Results: Technical success was achieved in 21 cases (70.0%). The mean diameter of the cystic duct was more significant in the successful cases (6.5 mm vs. 3.7 mm, p<0.05). Adverse events occurred for 7 patients (23.3%: acute pancreatitis in 7; non-obstructive cholangitis in 1; perforation of the cystic duct in 1 with an overlap), all of which improved with conservative treatment. No patients developed AC when the GBS placement was successful, whereas 25 of the 128 patients (19.5%) without a prophylactic GBS developed AC during the median follow-up period of 357 days (p=0.043). In the multivariable analysis, GBS placement was a significant factor in preventing AC (hazard ratio, 0.61; 95% confidence interval, 0.37–0.99; p=0.045). Conclusions GBS may contribute to the prevention of AC after SEMS placement for malignant biliary strictures.

Background/Aims: Endoscopic biliary drainage using self-expandable metallic stents (SEMSs) for malignant biliary strictures occasionally induces acute cholecystitis (AC). This study evaluated the efficacy of prophylactic gallbladder stents (GBS) during SEMS placement. Methods: Among 158 patients who underwent SEMS placement for malignant biliary strictures between January 2018 and March 2023, 30 patients who attempted to undergo prophylactic GBS placement before SEMS placement were included. Results: Technical success was achieved in 21 cases (70.0%). The mean diameter of the cystic duct was more significant in the successful cases (6.5 mm vs. 3.7 mm, p<0.05). Adverse events occurred for 7 patients (23.3%: acute pancreatitis in 7; non-obstructive cholangitis in 1; perforation of the cystic duct in 1 with an overlap), all of which improved with conservative treatment. No patients developed AC when the GBS placement was successful, whereas 25 of the 128 patients (19.5%) without a prophylactic GBS developed AC during the median follow-up period of 357 days (p=0.043). In the multivariable analysis, GBS placement was a significant factor in preventing AC (hazard ratio, 0.61; 95% confidence interval, 0.37–0.99; p=0.045). Conclusions GBS may contribute to the prevention of AC after SEMS placement for malignant biliary strictures.

Background/Aims: We aimed to investigate (1) promising clinical findings for the recognition of focal type autoimmune pancreatitis (FAIP) and (2) the impact of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition (EUS-TA) on the diagnosis of FAIP. Methods: Twenty-three patients with FAIP were involved in this study, and 44 patients with resected pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) were included in the control group. Results: (1) Multivariate analysis revealed that homogeneous delayed enhancement on contrast-enhanced computed tomography was a significant factor indicative of FAIP compared to PDAC (90% vs. 7%, p=0.015). (2) For 13 of 17 FAIP patients (76.5%) who underwent EUS-TA, EUS-TA aided the diagnostic confirmation of AIPs, and only one patient (5.9%) was found to have AIP after surgery. On the other hand, of the six patients who did not undergo EUS-TA, three (50.0%) underwent surgery for pancreatic lesions. Conclusions Homogeneous delayed enhancement on contrast-enhanced computed tomography was the most useful clinical factor for discriminating FAIPs from PDACs. EUS-TA is mandatory for diagnostic confirmation of FAIP lesions and can contribute to a reduction in the rate of unnecessary surgery for patients with FAIP.

Background/Aims: This study aimed to clarify the efficacy and safety of pancreatic duct lavage cytology combined with a cell-block method (PLC-CB) for possible pancreatic ductal adenocarcinomas (PDACs). Methods: This study included 41 patients with suspected PDACs who underwent PLC-CB mainly because they were unfit for undergoing endoscopic ultrasonography-guided fine needle aspiration. A 6-Fr double lumen catheter was mainly used to perform PLC-CB. Final diagnoses were obtained from the findings of resected specimens or clinical outcomes during surveillance after PLC-CB. Results: Histocytological evaluations using PLC-CB were performed in 87.8% (36/41) of the patients. For 31 of the 36 patients, final diagnoses (invasive PDAC, 12; pancreatic carcinoma in situ, 5; benignancy, 14) were made, and the remaining five patients were excluded due to lack of surveillance periods after PLC-CB. For 31 patients, the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of PLC-CB for detecting malignancy were 94.1%, 100%, and 96.8%, respectively. In addition, they were 87.5%, 100%, and 94.1%, respectively, in 17 patients without pancreatic masses detectable using endoscopic ultrasonography. Four patients developed postprocedural pancreatitis, which improved with conservative therapy. Conclusions PLC-CB has an excellent ability to detect malignancies in patients with possible PDACs, including pancreatic carcinoma in situ.

Background/Aims: Endoscopic biliary drainage using self-expandable metallic stents (SEMSs) for malignant biliary strictures occasionally induces acute cholecystitis (AC). This study evaluated the efficacy of prophylactic gallbladder stents (GBS) during SEMS placement. Methods: Among 158 patients who underwent SEMS placement for malignant biliary strictures between January 2018 and March 2023, 30 patients who attempted to undergo prophylactic GBS placement before SEMS placement were included. Results: Technical success was achieved in 21 cases (70.0%). The mean diameter of the cystic duct was more significant in the successful cases (6.5 mm vs. 3.7 mm, p<0.05). Adverse events occurred for 7 patients (23.3%: acute pancreatitis in 7; non-obstructive cholangitis in 1; perforation of the cystic duct in 1 with an overlap), all of which improved with conservative treatment. No patients developed AC when the GBS placement was successful, whereas 25 of the 128 patients (19.5%) without a prophylactic GBS developed AC during the median follow-up period of 357 days (p=0.043). In the multivariable analysis, GBS placement was a significant factor in preventing AC (hazard ratio, 0.61; 95% confidence interval, 0.37–0.99; p=0.045). Conclusions GBS may contribute to the prevention of AC after SEMS placement for malignant biliary strictures.

Background/Aims: Endoscopic biliary drainage using self-expandable metallic stents (SEMSs) for malignant biliary strictures occasionally induces acute cholecystitis (AC). This study evaluated the efficacy of prophylactic gallbladder stents (GBS) during SEMS placement. Methods: Among 158 patients who underwent SEMS placement for malignant biliary strictures between January 2018 and March 2023, 30 patients who attempted to undergo prophylactic GBS placement before SEMS placement were included. Results: Technical success was achieved in 21 cases (70.0%). The mean diameter of the cystic duct was more significant in the successful cases (6.5 mm vs. 3.7 mm, p<0.05). Adverse events occurred for 7 patients (23.3%: acute pancreatitis in 7; non-obstructive cholangitis in 1; perforation of the cystic duct in 1 with an overlap), all of which improved with conservative treatment. No patients developed AC when the GBS placement was successful, whereas 25 of the 128 patients (19.5%) without a prophylactic GBS developed AC during the median follow-up period of 357 days (p=0.043). In the multivariable analysis, GBS placement was a significant factor in preventing AC (hazard ratio, 0.61; 95% confidence interval, 0.37–0.99; p=0.045). Conclusions GBS may contribute to the prevention of AC after SEMS placement for malignant biliary strictures.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: This study aimed to identify the predictive factors for inaccurate endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) diagnosis of swollen lymph nodes without rapid on-site cytopathological evaluation. METHODS: Eighty-three consecutive patients who underwent EUS-FNA for abdominal or mediastinal lymph nodes from January 2008 to June 2017 were included from a prospectively maintained EUS-FNA database and retrospectively reviewed. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of EUS-FNA for the detection of neoplastic diseases were calculated. Candidate factors for inaccurate diagnosis (lymph node size and location, needle type, puncture route, number of passes, and causative disease) were evaluated by comparison between accurately diagnosed cases and others. RESULTS: The final diagnosis of the punctured lymph node was classified as neoplastic (65 cases: a metastatic lymph node, malignant lymphoma, or Crow-Fukase syndrome) or non-neoplastic (18 cases: a reactive node or amyloidosis). The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were 83%, 94%, and 86%, respectively. On multivariate analyses, small size of the lymph node was the sole predictive factor for inaccurate EUS-FNA diagnosis with a significant difference (odds ratios, 19.8; 95% confidence intervals, 3.15–124; p=0.0015). CONCLUSIONS: The lymph node size of <16 mm was the only independent factor associated with inaccurate EUS-FNA diagnosis of swollen lymph nodes.
Diagnosis ; Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration ; Endosonography ; Humans ; Lymph Nodes ; Lymphatic Diseases ; Lymphoma ; Multivariate Analysis ; Needles ; Prospective Studies ; Punctures ; Retrospective Studies ; Risk Factors ; Sensitivity and Specificity

BACKGROUND/AIMS: In this study, we aimed to evaluate the predictive value of localized stenosis of the main pancreatic duct (MPD) for early detection of pancreatic cancer.METHODS: Among 689 patients who underwent endoscopic retrograde pancreatography from January 2008 to September 2018, 19 patients with MPD findings were enrolled. These patients showed findings for indicating suspicious pancreatic cancer at an early stage (FiCE); FiCE was defined as a single, localized stenosis in the MPD without a detectable mass (using any other imaging methods) and without other pancreatic diseases, such as definite chronic pancreatitis, intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm, and autoimmune pancreatitis. Final diagnoses were established by examining resected specimens or through follow-up examinations after an interval of >5 years.RESULTS: Among 19 patients with FiCE, 11 underwent surgical resection and 8 were evaluated after a >5-year observation period. The final diagnosis of the MPD stenosis was judged to be pancreatic cancer in 9 patients (47%), including 3 with intraepithelial cancer, and to be a non-neoplastic change in 10. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of preoperative pancreatic juice cytology were 75%, 100%, and 88%, respectively.CONCLUSIONS: The predictive value of FiCE for pancreatic cancer prevalence was 47%. Histological confirmation with pancreatic juice cytology is necessary before surgical resection.
Cholangiopancreatography, Endoscopic Retrograde ; Constriction, Pathologic ; Diagnosis ; Follow-Up Studies ; Humans ; Mucins ; Pancreatic Diseases ; Pancreatic Ducts ; Pancreatic Juice ; Pancreatic Neoplasms ; Pancreatitis ; Pancreatitis, Chronic ; Prevalence ; Sensitivity and Specificity