Search

Malignant biliary obstruction (MBO) is a challenging medical problem that often negatively impacts the patient's quality of life (QoL), postoperative complications, and survival rates. Endoscopic approaches to biliary drainage are generally performed by ERCP or, in selected cases, with a percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD). Recent advances in therapeutic endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) allow drainage where previous methods have failed. EUS has evolved from a purely diagnostic technique to one that allows a therapeutic approach in the event of ERCP failure in distal MBO. Moreover, the introduction of dedicated accessories and prostheses for EUS-guided transmural biliary drainage (EUS-BD) made these procedures more successful with regard to technical success, clinical outcomes and reduction of adverse events (AEs). Finally, lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS) have improved the therapeutic role of the EUS. Subsequently, the electrocautery enhanced tip of the LAMS (EC-LAMS) allows a direct access of the delivery system to the target lumen, thereby simplifying and reducing the EUS-BD procedure time. EUS-BD using LAMS and EC-LAMS has proven effective and safe with a low rate of AEs. This review aims to evaluate biliary drainage techniques in malignant obstruction, focusing on the role of EUS biliary drainage by LAMS.

There is scarce evidence on the comparison between different methods for the drainage of distal malignant biliary obstruction (DMBO) after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) failure. Therefore, we performed a network meta-analysis to compare the outcomes of these techniques. We searched main databases through September 2021 and identified five randomized controlled trials. The primary outcome was clinical success. The secondary outcomes were technical success, overall and serious adverse event rate. Percutaneous trans-hepatic biliary drainage was found to be inferior to other interventions (PTBD: RR 1.01, 0.88-1.17 with EUS-choledochoduodenostomy (EUS-CD); RR 1.03, 0.86-1.22 with EUS-hepaticogastrostomy (EUS-HG); RR 1.42, 0.90-2.24 with surgical hepaticojejunostomy). The comparison between EUS-HG and EUS-CD was not significant (RR 1.01, 0.87-1.17). Surgery was not superior to other interventions (RR 1.40, 0.91-2.13 with EUS-CD and RR 1.38, 0.88-2.16 with EUS-HG). No difference in any of the comparisons concerning adverse event rate was detected, although PTBD showed a slightly poorer performance on ranking analysis (SUCRA score 0.13). In conclusion, all interventions seem to be effective for the drainage of DMBO, although PTBD showed a trend towards higher rates of adverse events.