Percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) is an established procedure for biliary obstruction. However, duodenobiliary or jejunobiliary reflux of the intestinal contents through a PTBD catheter sometimes causes recurrent catheter obstruction or cholangitis. A 64-year-old female patient with a history of choledochojejunostomy was referred to our department with acute cholangitis due to choledochojejunal anastomotic obstruction. Emergent PTBD was performed, but frequent obstructions of the catheter due to the reflux of intestinal contents complicated the post-PTBD course. We therefore introduced a catheter with an antireflux mechanism to prevent jejunobiliary reflux. A commercially available catheter was modified; side holes were made at 1 cm and 5 to 10 cm (1 cm apart) from the tip of the catheter, and the catheter was ligated with a nylon thread just proximal to the first side hole. Using this novel "antireflux PTBD technique," jejunobiliary reflux was prevented successfully, resulting in a longer patency of the catheter.
Catheter Obstruction ; Catheters ; Cholangitis ; Choledochostomy ; Dioxolanes ; Drainage ; Female ; Fluorocarbons ; Gastrointestinal Contents ; Humans ; Nylons

Background/Aims: Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition is widely utilized as a diagnostic modality for intra-abdominal masses, but there remains debate regarding which suction technique, slow pull (SP) or conventional suction (CS), is better. A meta-analysis of reported studies was conducted to compare the diagnostic yields of SP and CS during EUS-guided tissue acquisition. Methods: We conducted a systematic electronic search using MEDLINE/PubMed, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to identify clinical studies comparing SP and CS. We meta-analyzed accuracy, sensitivity, blood contamination and cellularity using the random-effects model. Results: A total of 17 studies (seven randomized controlled trials, four prospective studies, and six retrospective studies) with 1,616 cases were included in the analysis. Compared to CS, there was a trend toward better accuracy (odds ratio [OR], 1.48; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.97 to 2.27; p=0.07) and sensitivity (OR, 1.67; 95% CI, 0.95 to 2.93; p=0.08) with SP and a significantly lower rate of blood contamination (OR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.33 to 0.69; p<0.01). However, there was no significant difference in cellularity between SP and CS, with an OR of 1.28 (95% CI, 0.68 to 2.40; p=0.45). When the use of a 25-gauge needle was analyzed, the accuracy and sensitivity of SP were significantly better than those of CS, with ORs of 4.81 (95% CI, 1.99 to 11.62; p<0.01) and 4.69 (95% CI, 1.93 to 11.40; p<0.01), respectively. Conclusions Compared to CS, SP appears to provide better accuracy and sensitivity in EUSguided tissue acquisition, especially when a 25-gauge needle is used.

Background/Aims: Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition is widely utilized as a diagnostic modality for intra-abdominal masses, but there remains debate regarding which suction technique, slow pull (SP) or conventional suction (CS), is better. A meta-analysis of reported studies was conducted to compare the diagnostic yields of SP and CS during EUS-guided tissue acquisition. Methods: We conducted a systematic electronic search using MEDLINE/PubMed, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to identify clinical studies comparing SP and CS. We meta-analyzed accuracy, sensitivity, blood contamination and cellularity using the random-effects model. Results: A total of 17 studies (seven randomized controlled trials, four prospective studies, and six retrospective studies) with 1,616 cases were included in the analysis. Compared to CS, there was a trend toward better accuracy (odds ratio [OR], 1.48; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.97 to 2.27; p=0.07) and sensitivity (OR, 1.67; 95% CI, 0.95 to 2.93; p=0.08) with SP and a significantly lower rate of blood contamination (OR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.33 to 0.69; p<0.01). However, there was no significant difference in cellularity between SP and CS, with an OR of 1.28 (95% CI, 0.68 to 2.40; p=0.45). When the use of a 25-gauge needle was analyzed, the accuracy and sensitivity of SP were significantly better than those of CS, with ORs of 4.81 (95% CI, 1.99 to 11.62; p<0.01) and 4.69 (95% CI, 1.93 to 11.40; p<0.01), respectively. Conclusions Compared to CS, SP appears to provide better accuracy and sensitivity in EUSguided tissue acquisition, especially when a 25-gauge needle is used.

Endoscopic management of bile duct stones is now the standard of care, but challenges remain with difficult bile duct stones. There are some known factors associated with technically difficult bile duct stones, such as large size and surgically altered anatomy. Endoscopic mechanical lithotripsy is now the standard technique used to remove large bile duct stones, but the efficacy of endoscopic papillary large balloon dilatation (EPLBD) and cholangioscopy with intraductal lithotripsy has been increasingly reported. In patients with surgically altered anatomy, biliary access before stone removal can be technically difficult. Endotherapy using two new endoscopes is now utilized in clinical practice: enteroscopy-assisted endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and endoscopic ultrasound-guided antegrade treatment. These new approaches can be combined with EPLBD and/or cholangioscopy to remove large bile duct stones from patients with surgically altered anatomy. Since various endoscopic procedures are now available, endoscopists should learn the indications, advantages and disadvantages of each technique for better management of bile duct stones.

Background/Aims: Recently, a three-plane symmetric nee-dle with Franseen geometry was developed for endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle biopsy (EUS-FNB). In this ret-rospective study, tissue acquisition per pass was compared between 22-gauge Franseen FNB and standard fine needle aspiration (FNA) needles in patients with solid pancreatic le-sions. Methods: Consecutive patients who underwent EUSFNA or EUS-FNB for solid pancreatic lesions between Octo-ber 2014 and March 2018 were retrospectively studied. The tissue acquisition rate and the diagnostic performance per session, per pass, and at first pass were compared. Results: A total of 663 passes (300 by the FNB needle and 363 by the standard FNA needle) were performed in 154 patients (71 FNB and 83 FNA). The tissue acquisition rate per session and at first pass in the FNB and FNA groups was 100% and 95% (p=0.13) and 87% and 69% (p=0.007), respectively. The multivariate analysis revealed that among the patients, EUS-FNB (odds ratio, 3.07; p=0.01) was associated with a higher first-pass tissue acquisition rate. While the tissue ac-quisition rate reached a plateau after the 4th pass with FNA, it reached a plateau after the 2nd pass with FNB. Among the 129 malignant cases, the histological tissue acquisition rate per session was similar (100% and 94%), but the sensitivity by histology alone per session was higher for FNB than for FNA (93% and 73%, p<0.01). Conclusions The results of our retrospective analysis indicated that compared with a standard FNA needle, a 22-gauge Franseen FNB needle was associated with a higher first-pass tissue acquisition rate.