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

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) has become the first-line therapy for bile duct drainage. In the hands of experienced endoscopists, conventional ERCP results in a failed cannulation rate of 3% to 5%. This failure can occur more commonly in the setting of altered anatomy or technically difficult cases due to either duodenal or biliary obstruction. In cases of ERCP failure, patients have traditionally been referred for either percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) or surgery. However, both PTBD and surgery have higher than desirable complication rates. Within the last decade, endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) has become an attractive alternative to PTBD after failed ERCP. Many groups have reported on the feasibility, efficacy and safety of this technique. This article reviews the indications for ERCP and the currently practiced EUS-BD techniques, including EUS-guided rendezvous, EUS-guided choledochoduodenostomy and EUS-guided hepaticogastrostomy.
Bile Ducts ; Catheterization ; Cholangiopancreatography, Endoscopic Retrograde ; Choledochostomy ; Dioxolanes ; Drainage ; Fluorocarbons ; Hand ; Humans

Bronchobiliary fistula (BBF) is a rare condition that is defined as an abnormal communication between the biliary system and bronchial tree. Furthermore, a BBF is an extremely rare complication of radiofrequency ablation (RFA). A 54 year-old man with a history of extrahepatic biliary cancer had been suffering with a benign stricture of hepaticojejunostomy site and was treated with RFA for metastatic cholangicarcinoma. In this report, we describe a patient with BBF complicated by an abscess which occurred after RFA. He was treated by placement of external drainage catheter into the liver abscess and percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) into the right intrahepatic duct. After 6 weeks, a complete obliteration of the BBF was confirmed by a repeated follow-up of computed tomography scan and cholangiography through PTBD.
Abscess ; Biliary Fistula ; Biliary Tract ; Bronchial Fistula ; Catheter Ablation ; Catheters ; Cholangiocarcinoma ; Cholangiography ; Constriction, Pathologic ; Dioxolanes ; Drainage ; Fistula ; Fluorocarbons ; Follow-Up Studies ; Humans ; Liver Abscess ; Stress, Psychological

BACKGROUND: In cases of endoscopic intervention treatment for biliary stricture which fail, a percutaneous approach can be subsequently attempted. However, the quality of life is lower for those patients with percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) tubes than those with endoscopic retrograde biliary drainage tubes. In this study, we report the outcome of the application of percutaneous transhepatic biliary stenting (PTBS) for use in subsequent endoscopic treatment of biliary stricture after living donor liver transplantation (LDLT). METHODS: Of 165 patients who underwent LDLT, 40 (24.2%) were diagnosed with anastomotic biliary strictures. Of these patients, seven agreed to treatment using PTBS using a plastic stent with endoscopic follow-up instead of treatment by insertion of a PTBD tube, and were enrolled in this study. RESULTS: In all seven patients, the use of this technique enabled effective advancement of a guide wire and successful placement of one or two plastic stents (7 or 10 Fr) into the PTBD tract. There were no PTBS-related complications associated with the procedure. The median duration for stent use was 40.3 weeks (range; 27.6~65.0). Upon final removal of all stents, the stricture had been resolved in four (57%) of the seven patients. CONCLUSIONS: Our study data suggested that, after failed use of ERCP in the treatment of biliary stricture after LDLT, the use of PTBS and ERCP may be an effective and safe treatment.
Bile Ducts ; Cholangiopancreatography, Endoscopic Retrograde ; Constriction, Pathologic ; Dioxolanes ; Drainage ; Fluorocarbons ; Follow-Up Studies ; Humans ; Liver ; Liver Transplantation ; Living Donors ; Plastics ; Quality of Life ; Stents

OBJECTIVES: Several advances in the diagnosis, therapy and palliation of patients affected by malignant biliary obstruction have occurred during the last decades. Unresectable malignant biliary obstruction has usually been treated by percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) versus metallic biliary drainage (MBD). The optimal management of complications after biliary drainage is still an unresolved problem. To compare the complications of malignant biliary obstruction after PTBD and MBD. METHODS: We enrolled 51 patients of malignant biliary obstruction after biliary drainage. The clinical characteristics and complications of each groups were assessed and compared. RESULTS: The complications after biliary drainage of MBD are lower than those of PTBD (59.1% vs 82.8%, P = 0.06, respectively). Patients with PTBD tended to have a shorter event of complication time compared to MBD patients (2.9 months vs 7.1 months, P < 0.01). Patients with older age in PTBD tended to have a longer event of complication time compared to younger patients (4.6 months vs 2.3 months, P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The method of biliary drainage in malignant biliary obstruction have statistically significant impact on the complication time. The clinical efficacy of metallic stent in patients with malignant biliary obstruction is better than that of PTBD.
Dioxolanes ; Drainage ; Fluorocarbons ; Humans ; Radiography, Interventional ; Stents

PURPOSE: T-tube is a major procedure that prevents complication by biliary decompression, but which is accompanied by complications. Therefore, several procedures such as ENBD, PTBD, and antegrade biliary stent have been attempted, but with controversies as to which procedure is superior. Also, there are no standard procedures after laparoscopic CBD exploration. We performed this study to ascertain the most appropriate biliary drainage procedure after laparoscopic CBD exploration. METHODS: From March 2001 to December 2009, 121 patients who underwent Laparoscopic CBD exploration in Gunyang University were included for retrospective analysis. The patients were divided to 4 groups according to type of procedure, and we compared clinical parameters including age and gender, operation time, hospital stay, start of post-operative diet, and complications. RESULTS: There was no difference in age, gender, mean operation time, postoperative diet between the 4 groups. Hospital stay in the Stent group was shorter than T-tube group. There were 10 (7%) complications that occurred. Two 2 occurred in the T-tube, 3 in PTBD, and 5 in the Antegrade stent group. There were more complications in Stent group but no significant statistical difference. In 5 cases with remnant CBD stone, a total of 4 (3 PTBD, 1 Stent) was performed by endoscopic CBD stone removal. One T-tube case was removed easily by choledochoscopy through the T-tube. Three migrated and the impacted stents were removed by additional endoscopy. Perioperative biliary leakage (1) and peritonitis (1) post t-tube removal were resolved by conservative treatment. CONCLUSION: T-tube appears to be an appropriate method to patients who are suspected to have remnant CBD stones. Multiple procedures may be performed on a case by case basis such as performing PTBD first in a suspected cholangitis patient.
Bile ; Cholangitis ; Decompression ; Diet ; Dioxolanes ; Drainage ; Endoscopy ; Fluorocarbons ; Humans ; Length of Stay ; Peritonitis ; Retrospective Studies ; Stents

Percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) has been widely used, but it has a potential risk of tumor spread along the catheter tract. We herein present a case of solitary PTBD tract metastasis after curative resection of perihilar cholangiocarcinoma. Initially, endoscopic nasobiliary drainage was done on a 65 year-old female patient, but the cholangitis did not resolve. Thus a PTBD catheter was inserted into the right posterior duct. Right portal vein embolization was also performed. Curative surgery including right hepatectomy and bile duct resection was performed 16 days after PTBD. After 12 months, serum CA19-9 had increased gradually without any symptoms. Finally, a small right pleural metastasis was found through strict tumor surveillance for 6 months. Chemoradiation therapy was performed, but there was no response to treatment. As the tumor progressed, she complained of severe dyspnea and finally died from tumor dissemination to the chest and bones 18 months after the first detection of PTBD tract recurrence and 36 months after surgery. No intra-abdominal recurrence was found until the terminal stage. This PTBD tract recurrence was attributed to the PTBD even though it was in place for only 16 days. Although such recurrence is rare, its risk should be taken into account during follow-up of patients who have received PTBD before.
Bile Ducts ; Catheters ; Cholangiocarcinoma ; Cholangitis ; Dioxolanes ; Drainage ; Dyspnea ; Female ; Fluorocarbons ; Follow-Up Studies ; Hepatectomy ; Humans ; Hypogonadism ; Mitochondrial Diseases ; Neoplasm Metastasis ; Ophthalmoplegia ; Portal Vein ; Recurrence ; Thorax

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Replacement of a percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) catheter with inside stents using endoscopic retrograde cholangiography is difficult in patients with angulated or twisted biliary anastomotic stricture after living donor liver transplantation (LDLT). We evaluated the usefulness and safety of the rendezvous technique for the management of biliary stricture after LDLT. METHODS: Twenty patients with PTBD because of biliary stricture after LDLT with duct-to-duct anastomosis underwent the placement of inside stents using the rendezvous technique. RESULTS: Inside stents were successfully placed in the 20 patients using the rendezvous technique. The median procedure time was 29.6 (range, 7.5-71.8) minutes. The number of inside stents placed was one in 12 patients and two in eight patients. One mild acute pancreatitis and one acute cholangitis occurred, which improved within a few days. Inside stent related sludge or stone was identified in 12 patients during follow-up. Thirteen patients achieved stent-free status for a median of 281 (range, 70-1,351) days after removal of the inside stents. CONCLUSIONS: The rendezvous technique is a useful and safe method for the replacement of PTBD catheter with inside stent in patients with biliary stricture after LDLT with duct-to-duct anastomosis. The rendezvous technique could be recommended to patients with angulated or twisted strictures.
Adult ; Catheters ; Cholangiography ; Cholangitis ; Constriction, Pathologic ; Dioxolanes ; Drainage ; Fluorocarbons ; Follow-Up Studies ; Humans ; Liver ; Liver Transplantation ; Living Donors ; Pancreatitis ; Sewage ; Stents

This is the Fourth Annual Meeting of the Society for Gastrointestinal Intervention, a multi-disciplinary group of practitioners committed to a minimally invasive approach to both the diagnosis and treatment of digestive disorders. The key concepts are minimally invasive and multi-disciplinary which can be construed as practicing in parallel with occasional lines of procedural and clinical interaction or inter-disciplinary in which patients are acutely cared for by a team, with treatments tailored to the patient and not the discipline that touches the patient first. In reality, many of us exist in both worlds. Most universities and large clinics are structured in departments along traditional training lines. As such, Interventional Radiology is housed in the Radiology Department, Laparoscopic Surgery (and potentially NOTES), as a component of the General Surgery Division, and Therapeutic Endoscopy usually resides within a gastroenterology structural framework. These divisions have historically been kept separate by multiple forces: salaries and budgets usually reside in a larger division. As a group, the amount of practice devoted to GI disorders is variable (for instance, minimally invasive surgeons may approach the adrenal glands or lung lesions in some institutions and interventional radiologists often sample tissue in multiple areas outside the GI tract, and by virtue of access to the vascular tree, can stent, embolize, or TPA almost any area of the body), as well as inherent differences in our individual abilities to access organs. I have already mentioned that angiographic capabilities allow the interventional radiologist access to virtually every GI organ and those capabilities allow therapeutic options for bleeding, tumor embolization, stenting of stenotic lesions, and formation of intravascular shunts. As such, there is very limited interdisciplinary competition here although capsule endoscopy as well as double and single balloon enteroscopy have improved the endoscopist's diagnostic and potential therapeutic reach. However, many of these diagnostic triumphs for obscure or massive GI bleed are simply to tattoo lesions that require surgical removal by laparoscopic or traditional surgery. Cooperation. However, there are potential competitive areas in the treatment of GI vascular lesions also. Whereas endoscopic band ligation has supplanted EVS, splenic devascularization, and most shunting procedures for patients with esophageal varices, endoscopic techniques have had less long-term success with glue injection for gastric varices. Multiple randomized, prospective trials have suggested therapeutic primacy of TIPS with embolization of recalcitrant vessels as an option or back-up. Despite this, therapeutic endoscopists have learned valuable lesions from our IR colleagues and studies are underway using endoscopically injected coils in addition to cyanoacrylate in an attempt to improve acute and long-term bleeding control. Nor is there any major competition in the treatment of primary or metastatic liver tumors by chemoembolization, RF current, or other thermal modalities, although selected patients with single lesions or multiple lesions isolated to a single lobe may be better handled surgically if there is curative intent. Finally, there is little IR, and progressively less, surgical competition for the treatment of high-grade dysplasia or superficial malignancies in the setting of Barrett's esophagus which are adequately treated in most patients by mucosectomy, RF ablation, or cryotherapy but require direct mucosal visualization to direct this therapy. The same has proven true for many years for colorectal polyps, superficial gastric cancers, and ampullary adenomas that had historically all been treated with major surgical resections. Still, there are many patients with advanced lesions who are good operative candidates who should be approached with conventional or minimally invasive surgery with the intent of operative cure. Cooperative, not competitive. The potential for competition between disciplines comes in mundane situations and clinical settings that have historically been "owned" by a single discipline. On the one hand, placement of PEGS and PEJs, initially done endoscopically, can be done with equal facility and occasional failure, by endoscopists and interventional radiologists, reserving failed attempts for minimally invasive surgery. What resources are utilized with these three methods? Are there advantages to defining the mucosa of the gut lumen in all, or even a subset of patients? By way of contrast, acute cholecystectomy tubes in high surgical risk patients have usually been the domain of the radiologist, although I described transcystic duct gallbladder decompression endoscopically 2(1/2) decades ago. With the advent of new devices delivered under EUS control, the gallbladder will now be readily accessible endoscopically. What does this mean both for the acutely ill patient without a window to approach their gallbladder radiologically? Will this play a bit part and a cooperative technique to expand our therapeutic armamentarium or will it become competitive therapeutically not only for IR but for minimally invasive surgeons? The same may be said for EUS's ability to inject genes, caustics, or chemo-therapeutic agents into organs adjacent to the lumen. What is the role of TNFerade injection into unresectable pancreatic cancers and the role of absolute alcohol or Taxitol to treat cystic neoplasms of the pancreas? The real issue of competition or cooperation between the disciplines comes when treating patients with unresectable and obstructing GI neoplasms, from my perspective. The latter may occur almost anywhere in the GI tract but, of course, are more commonly noted proximally (esophagus, stomach, duodenum) and distally (left colon) as well as proximal and distal biliary obstructions. Recognizing that the occasional mid-small bowel and many proximal colon lesions are better handled with an endoscopic approach because of loss of vector force and difficulty pushing a catheter through large diameter, acutely angulated lumens, all others are fair game from my perspective. To my knowledge, although there are studies demonstrating the superiority of SEMS over open or laparoscopic bypass for malignant gastric outlet obstruction insofar as return of gut function, hospitalization time, and resource utilization, there are no studies demonstrating the superiority of one discipline or another in the placement of SEMS. Nor have cost data emerged suggesting the superiority of one technique over another from a cost standpoint. Unless or until we have such studies, this suggests to me that institutional interest and expertise should play a major role in how these unfortunate patients have continuity of their GI tract re-established. The situation is a bit more complex in pancreaticobiliary malignancy. There are 2 prospective randomized trials (level 1 evidence) that suggest that patients with proximal strictures (Bismuth II-IV) in conjunction with bile duct and gallbladder cancer, respectively, may be more successfully stented percutaneously and certainly it is easier to deliver brachytherapy or PDT under protocol to these patients who have indwelling external drains. In contrast, there are no data, positive or negative, to suggest that PTBD is a preferable treatment for distal biliary malignant obstruction, and in most parts of the world, the endoscopic approach has supplanted the percutaneous one just as metal stents have replaced plastic prostheses to preclude recurrent bouts of stent dysfunction and need for additional ERCP. The question posed at the beginning of this syllabus contribution: Are we competitive or cooperative? The answer is obviously both but, hopefully, our choice of treatment should depend less on who touches the patient first and more on skill sets within an institution and what is the best treatment for this particular individual. The importance of the SGI is technical and informational cross-fertilization. If your university or clinic will not allow blurring of training barriers to put therapeutic endoscopists, minimally invasive surgeons, and interventional radiologists together as a department or institute, you can nevertheless work together as a team in the best interest of your patients.
Adenoma ; Adhesives ; Adrenal Glands ; Barrett Esophagus ; Bile Ducts ; Brachytherapy ; Budgets ; Capsule Endoscopy ; Catheters ; Caustics ; Cholangiopancreatography, Endoscopic Retrograde ; Cholecystectomy ; Colon ; Constriction, Pathologic ; Cryotherapy ; Cyanoacrylates ; Decompression ; Dioxolanes ; Endoscopy ; Esophageal and Gastric Varices ; Ethanol ; Fluorocarbons ; Gallbladder ; Gallbladder Neoplasms ; Gastric Outlet Obstruction ; Gastroenterology ; Gastrointestinal Tract ; Hand ; Hemorrhage ; Hospitalization ; Humans ; Isothiocyanates ; Laparoscopy ; Ligation ; Liver ; Lung ; Mucous Membrane ; Pancreatic Neoplasms ; Plastics ; Polyps ; Prostheses and Implants ; Radiology, Interventional ; Salaries and Fringe Benefits ; Stents ; Stomach ; Stomach Neoplasms ; Triazenes ; Virtues

Endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) combines endoscopy and intraluminal ultrasonography, and allows imaging with a high-frequency transducer over a short distance to generate high-resolution ultrasonographic images. EUS is now a widely accepted modality for diagnosing pancreatobiliary diseases. EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) using a curved linear-array echoendoscope was initially described more than 20 years ago, and since then many researchers have expanded its indications to sample diverse lesions and have also used it for various therapeutic purposes. EUS-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) is one of the therapeutic procedures that has been developed using a curved linear-array echoendoscope. Technically, EUS-BD includes rendezvous techniques via transesophageal, transgastric, and transduodenal routes, EUS-guided choledochoduodenostomy (EUS-CDS), and EUS-guided hepaticogastrostomy (EUS-HGS). Published data have demonstrated a high success rate, albeit with a comparatively high rate of nonfatal complications for EUS-CDS and EUS-HGS, and a comparatively low success rate with a low complication rate for the rendezvous technique. At present, these procedures represent an alternative to surgery or percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) for patients with obstructive jaundice when endoscopic biliary drainage (EBD) has failed. However, these procedures should be performed in centers with extensive experience in linear EUS and therapeutic biliary ERCP. Large prospective studies are needed in the near future to establish standardized EUS-BD procedures as well as to perform controlled comparative trials between EUS-BD and PTBD, between rendezvous techniques and direct-access techniques (EUS-CDS and EUS-HGS), and between EBD and EUS-BD.
Biopsy, Fine-Needle ; Cholangiopancreatography, Endoscopic Retrograde ; Choledochostomy ; Dioxolanes ; Drainage ; Endoscopy ; Endosonography ; Fluorocarbons ; Humans ; Jaundice, Obstructive ; Transducers