Background
Deep enteroscopy-assisted ERCP (DEA-ERCP) in post-bariatric Roux-en-Y (RY) anatomy is challenging. Laparoscopy-assisted ERCP (LA-ERCP) and EUS-directed transgastric ERCP (EDGE) are technically easier and faster but are more invasive and morbid procedures. Therefore, we have used DEA-ERCP as our first-line approach, reserving EDGE and LA-ERCP for cases in which adjunctive techniques that cannot be performed through an enteroscope are required (eg, EUS-FNA, sleeve sphincter of Oddi manometry), or DEA-ERCP failures. The 2 main methods for DEA-ERCP are balloon- and spirus-assisted. Current literature on spiral enteroscopy ERCP (SE-ERCP) in bariatric RY anatomy is scant with low success rates reported. Our center has nearly exclusively used SE-ERCP for bariatric patients. Here, we report one of the largest such series to date.
Methods
This is a retrospective cohort study of consecutive patients with bariatric-length RY anatomy who had SE-ERCP from December 2009 to October 2016 at a tertiary care center, by one operator (S.N.S.). Primary outcomes included success at reaching the papilla, cannulation success, success of desired therapeutic intervention, and overall SE-ERCP success.
Results
Thirty-five SE-ERCPs were performed (28 in bariatric RY gastric bypass and 7 other long-limb RY surgical reconstructions). The papilla was reached in 86% (30/35) of cases. Cannulation success in patients in whom deep cannulation was indicated (28/30) was 100% (28/28 cases, including the 24 cases with native papilla). Therapeutic ERCP success was 100% (28/28). Overall SE-ERCP success was 86% (30/35). Median length of stay was 3 days. Median procedure time was 189 minutes. Reasons for SE-ERCP failures included RY anastomosis stricture, adhesions (2), long Roux limb, and redundant small bowel. Two of these patients underwent interventional radiology-guided percutaneous biliary drainage, 2 patients had laparoscopy-assisted ERCP, and 1 patient had EUS-guided antegrade cholangioscopy with sphincteroplasty and stone clearance. There were no adverse events.
Conclusion
With sufficient allotted time (median procedure time ∼3 hours) and high operator experience (a single-operator volume that exceeds that of other published series), SE-ERCP is safe and effective in bariatric, long-limb RY patients with an overall success rate of 86%, which is higher than previously reported.
Background and Aims
Two novel enteroscopic procedures, balloon enteroscopy and spiral enteroscopy, have revolutionized the diagnostic and therapeutic approach to small-bowel disorders. These disorders that historically required surgical interventions are now investigated and managed nonsurgically. Only a few weakly powered studies have compared the outcomes of spiral enteroscopy and balloon enteroscopy. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of these 2 procedures.
Methods
PubMed, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and clinicaltrials.gov databases were searched for all studies published up to January 12, 2017 comparing the efficacy and safety of balloon enteroscopy (single or double) and spiral enteroscopy. Primary outcomes of interest were diagnostic and therapeutic success rates. Other outcomes included procedure length, depth of maximal insertion (DMI), rate of complete enteroscopy, and adverse events. We calculated Odds ratios (ORs) for categorical variables and mean difference (MD) for continuous variables. The Mantel-Haenszel method was used to analyze the data. Fixed and random effect models were used for <50% heterogeneity and >50% heterogeneity, respectively.
Results
Eight studies met the inclusion criteria for this meta-analysis. A total of 615 procedures were analyzed, which included 394 balloon enteroscopy and 221 spiral enteroscopy procedures. There were no significant differences in diagnostic and therapeutic success rates (OR, 1.27; 95% confidence interval [CI], .86-1.88; P = .22; and OR, 1.23; 95% CI, .82-1.84; P = .32, respectively) between the 2 procedures. Similarly, DMI was not significantly different between the 2 groups (MD, 26.29; 95% CI, 20.92-73.49; P = .28). However, the procedure time was significantly shorter for the spiral enteroscopy group compared with the balloon enteroscopy group (MD, 11.26; 95% CI, 2.72-19.79; P = .010). A subgroup analysis comparing double balloon enteroscopy with spiral enteroscopy yielded similar results.
Conclusions
Both procedures achieved similar diagnostic and therapeutic outcomes and with similar depth of insertion. Spiral enteroscopy has the benefit of shorter procedural time.