Article Search
검색
검색 팝업 닫기

Metrics

Help

  • 1. Aims and Scope

    Gut and Liver is an international journal of gastroenterology, focusing on the gastrointestinal tract, liver, biliary tree, pancreas, motility, and neurogastroenterology. Gut atnd Liver delivers up-to-date, authoritative papers on both clinical and research-based topics in gastroenterology. The Journal publishes original articles, case reports, brief communications, letters to the editor and invited review articles in the field of gastroenterology. The Journal is operated by internationally renowned editorial boards and designed to provide a global opportunity to promote academic developments in the field of gastroenterology and hepatology. +MORE

  • 2. Editorial Board

    Editor-in-Chief + MORE

    Editor-in-Chief
    Yong Chan Lee Professor of Medicine
    Director, Gastrointestinal Research Laboratory
    Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Univ. California San Francisco
    San Francisco, USA

    Deputy Editor

    Deputy Editor
    Jong Pil Im Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
    Robert S. Bresalier University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, USA
    Steven H. Itzkowitz Mount Sinai Medical Center, NY, USA
  • 3. Editorial Office
  • 4. Articles
  • 5. Instructions for Authors
  • 6. File Download (PDF version)
  • 7. Ethical Standards
  • 8. Peer Review

    All papers submitted to Gut and Liver are reviewed by the editorial team before being sent out for an external peer review to rule out papers that have low priority, insufficient originality, scientific flaws, or the absence of a message of importance to the readers of the Journal. A decision about these papers will usually be made within two or three weeks.
    The remaining articles are usually sent to two reviewers. It would be very helpful if you could suggest a selection of reviewers and include their contact details. We may not always use the reviewers you recommend, but suggesting reviewers will make our reviewer database much richer; in the end, everyone will benefit. We reserve the right to return manuscripts in which no reviewers are suggested.

    The final responsibility for the decision to accept or reject lies with the editors. In many cases, papers may be rejected despite favorable reviews because of editorial policy or a lack of space. The editor retains the right to determine publication priorities, the style of the paper, and to request, if necessary, that the material submitted be shortened for publication.

Search

Search

Year

to

Article Type

Original Article

Split Viewer

Efficacy and Safety of Percutaneous Transhepatic Cholangioscopy with the Spyglass DS Direct Visualization System in Patients with Surgically Altered Anatomy: A Pilot Study

Hyung Ku Chon1,2 , Keum Ha Choi3 , Sang Hyun Seo4 , Tae Hyeon Kim1,2

1Division of Biliopancreas, Department of Internal Medicine, 2Institute of Wonkwang Medical Science, Departments of 3Pathology and 4Radiology, Wonkwang University Hospital, Wonkwang University College of Medicine, Iksan, Korea

Correspondence to: Tae Hyeon Kim
ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9723-2136
E-mail kth@wku.ac.kr

Received: January 22, 2021; Revised: February 25, 2021; Accepted: March 11, 2021

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Gut Liver 2022;16(1):111-117

Published online June 25, 2021, Published Date January 15, 2022 https://doi.org/10.5009/gnl210028

Copyright © Gut and Liver.

Background/Aims: Percutaneous transhepatic cholangioscopy (PTCS) is used for the diagnosis and treatment of biliary diseases in patients with failed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, particularly those with surgically altered anatomy. However, few studies are available on the clinical use of Spyglass DS direct visualization system (SpyDS)-assisted PTCS. This study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of SpyDS-assisted PTCS in patients with surgically altered anatomy, particularly those with a Roux-en-Y reconstruction.
Methods: Thirteen patients (six women, median age 71.4 years [range, 53 to 83 years]) with surgically altered anatomy (four Roux-en-Y choledochojejunostomies, seven Roux-en-Y hepaticojejunostomies, and two Roux-en-Y esophagojejunostomies) who underwent SpyDS-assisted PTCS between January 2019 and August 2020 were included and the data was acquired by retrospectively reviewing electronic medical record.
Results: A total of 19 SpyDS-assisted PTCS procedures were performed in the 13 patients: eight had bile-duct stones, and five had biliary strictures. All SpyDS-assisted PTCS procedures were successfully performed. The total procedure time was 42.42±18.0 minutes (mean±standard deviation). Bile duct clearance was achieved in all bile duct stone cases after a median of 2 (range, 1 to 3) procedures. In the five biliary stricture cases, the results of SpyBite forceps-guided targeted biopsy were consistent with adenocarcinoma (100% accuracy). The median hospitalization duration was 20 days (range, 14 to 30 days). No procedure-related morbidity or mortality occurred.
Conclusions: SpyDS-assisted PTCS may be a safe, feasible, and effective procedure for the diagnosis and treatment of biliary diseases in patients with surgically altered anatomy, particularly in those with the Roux-en-Y reconstruction requiring a percutaneous approach. However, our findings need to be validated in further studies.

Keywords: Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, Spyglass, Roux-en-Y anastomosis

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is the gold standard for the diagnosis and treatment of biliary diseases. However, ERCP failure occurs in approximately 5% to 20% of the patients, even in referral centers.1 Surgically altered anatomy, particularly long limbs, as in Roux-en-Y reconstruction, may be related to ERCP failure and present a considerable technical challenge.2,3 If a conventional endoscopic approach using a duodenoscope, a cap-fitted forward-viewing gastroscope, or baby colonoscope fails, device-assisted enteroscopy (DAE)- or endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided intervention may be considered as a secondary modality.4,5 These procedures require additional dedicated devices and should be performed by experts. The complication rate of the procedure has been reported to reach 20% and the steep learning curve associated with the procedure may be problematic.6-8

Percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) is an established technique that may be indicated in cases of previously failed ERCP, particularly in those involving a surgically altered anatomy.9,10 However, the specimen adequacy and diagnostic sensitivity of tissue obtained through PTBD may be unsatisfactory, and bile duct stone clearance with PTBD alone can be difficult. In such cases, percutaneous transhepatic cholangioscopy (PTCS) may be a suitable option because it allows performing target biopsy and stone fragmentation with laser lithotripsy or electrohydraulic lithotripsy (EHL) under direct visualization.11 Before performing a PTCS, fistula dilation to 16–18 F is required because the external diameter of a percutaneous cholangioscope is 4.1 to 4.9 mm.12 However, with the introduction of the Spyglass DS direct visualization system (SpyDS), which has an outer diameter of 10.5 F, cutaneous biliary fistula dilation of up to only 12 F has been possible for PTCS.13 Compared to the classical approach, this novel technique using SpyDS can reduce the pain associated with tract dilation for bile duct access and can shorten the length of hospital stay. Limited data are available on the outcomes of SpyDS-assisted PTCS for biliary stricture management and bile duct stone removal in patients with surgically altered anatomy. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of SpyDS-assisted PTCS in patients with a prior Roux-en-Y reconstruction.

1. Patients

A total of 76 consecutive patients with surgically altered anatomy who were treated for biliary diseases, including biliary stricture or bile duct stones, between January 2019 and August 2020 at Wonkwang University Hospital, were retrospectively reviewed. Of them, 63 patients were excluded for the following reasons: subtotal gastrectomy with Billroth II anastomosis (n=40), subtotal gastrectomy with Billroth I anastomosis (n=11), DAE (n=6), conventional PTCS (n=2), death due to disease progression after PTBD (n=2), EUS-guided intervention (n=1), and balloon dilation through PTBD (n=1) (Fig. 1). We evaluated the remaining 13 patients with a prior Roux-en-Y reconstruction who underwent PTCS with SpyDS. The patients’ electronic medical records were reviewed for demographic and clinical details, adverse events, findings, procedure reports, and clinical courses. This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Wonkwang University Hospital (IRB number: WKUH-2020-11-011) and conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. Written informed consent to undergo the procedure was obtained from all patients.

Figure 1.Flowchart of patient enrollment.
STG, subtotal gastrectomy; BI, Billroth I, BII, Billroth II; BE-ERCP, balloon enteroscopy-assisted endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography; PTBD, percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage; PTCS, percutaneous transhepatic cholangioscopy; EUS, endoscopic ultrasound.

2. Procedures

Stepwise percutaneous tract dilation with two sessions was performed by a skilled interventional radiologist (S.H.S.). PTBD was performed under fluoroscopic guidance, with an 8-F catheter inserted into the left intrahepatic duct and/or right intrahepatic bile duct, according to a planned anatomical approach to the stricture or bile-duct stones based on radiologic imaging. The percutaneous tract was dilated at least 3 days later by exchanging the 8-F catheter for a 12-F catheter. For sinus tract maturation, PTCS with SpyDS (Boston Scientific, Natick, MA, USA) was performed by two experienced endoscopists (T.H.K. and H.K.C.) at least 9 days after the initial PTBD. A guidewire was inserted into the small bowel lumen through the bilioenteric anastomosis using a PTBD catheter, which was removed thereafter. The SpyDS scope was advanced into the bile duct beside the guidewire. In cases of bile duct stones, predilation of the bilioenteric anastomosis site was performed using an 8-mm balloon (Hurricane RX; Boston Scientific). The stones were fragmented using EHL (EHL-Probe; Walz Elektronik, Rohrdorf, Germany) under direct visualization, and were removed by pushing with the tip of the SpyDS scope, washing with normal saline, or pushing the balloon catheter into the small intestine (Fig. 2). If duct clearance was confirmed by repeating the procedure under direct visualization and cholangiography, the 8-F catheter was inserted and removed 1 to 2 days later based on the follow-up cholangiography. In biliary stricture cases, visual assessment under direct cholangioscopy was performed, and target tissue biopsy using SpyBite forceps (Boston Scientific) was performed in lesions with suspicious malignant features, such as neovascularization or mass formation (Fig. 3). At the end of the procedure, the PTBD catheter was reinserted to drain the biliary tract. An experienced pathologist (K.H.C.) evaluated all specimens. During the procedure, sterile normal saline was continuously applied through an irrigation channel for proper visualization and to avoid cholangiovenous reflux.

Figure 2.Spyglass DS direct visualization system (SpyDS)-assisted percutaneous transhepatic cholangioscopy (PTCS) using electrohydraulic lithotripsy (EHL) for intrahepatic bile duct stone removal. (A) Magnetic resonance imaging showed an approximately 2.1 cm stone (white arrow) in the left intrahepatic bile duct. (B) Initial percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage with an 8-F catheter was performed. (C) Cutaneobiliary fistula dilation up to 12 F was performed at least 3 days later. (D) After cutaneous fistula tract maturation, the SpyDS scope (black arrow) was inserted into the left intrahepatic bile duct beside the guidewire. (E) PTCS with SpyDS (black arrowheads)-guided stone fragmentation using EHL (white open arrows) was performed.

Figure 3.Spyglass DS direct visualization system (SpyDS)-assisted percutaneous transhepatic cholangioscopy (PTCS) using SpyBite forceps for a biliary stricture. (A) Percutaneous transhepatic cholangiography showed dilatation of the intrahepatic bile duct, with stenosis (white arrow) at the upper third of the common bile duct. (B) SpyDS (white arrowheads)-assisted PTCS using SpyBite forceps (black arrow) was performed to evaluate the biliary stricture. (C) Cholangioscopy showed a circumferential mass with tumor vessels at the biliary stricture site, and tissue specimens were obtained using SpyBite forceps (open white arrow). (D) Pathologic examination revealed atypical glands (black arrows) with dysplastic surface epithelium (black arrowheads), compatible with adenocarcinoma (H&E, ×200).

3. Definitions

The PTCS with SpyDS was considered successful if the SpyDS scope was adequately advanced into the bile duct for proper intervention. Procedure time was recorded from the insertion of the SpyDS scope into the cutaneobiliary fistula to the re-insertion of the PTBD catheter. Duct clearance was considered successful when cholangiography and direct cholangioscopy revealed a clear duct. Procedure-related adverse events were investigated by reviewing the medical records, laboratory results, and images, including cholangiography, follow-up computed tomography scans, or magnetic resonance images, after the procedure.

The baseline characteristics and clinical data of the patients included in this study are shown in Table 1 and Supplementary Table 1. A total of 19 PTCS procedures using SpyDS were performed in the 13 patients (six women, median age 71.4 years [range, 53 to 83 years]), eight of whom had bile duct stones and five had a biliary stricture. All SpyDS-assisted PTCS procedures were successfully performed, and no procedure-related morbidity or mortality was observed. For the 19 procedures in the current study, the total procedure time was 42.42±18.0 minutes (mean±standard deviation). The median length of hospitalization and the median follow-up period were 20 days (range, 17 to 30 days) and 330 days (range, 70 to 536 days), respectively.

Table 1. Baseline Characteristics of the Enrolled Patients

Case No.Sex/age, yrPresentationAnatomyPrimary disease for surgical resectionBiliary diseaseBile duct diameter, mmProcedureAccess hepatic ductLength of hospital stay, dayFollow-up duration, day
1F/76FeverRoux-en-Y choledochojejunostomyCholedocholithiasisBiliary stricture19BiopsyRight IHBD28311
2F/78Abdominal painRoux-en-Y choledochojejunostomyCholedocholithiasisBile duct stone12EHLLeft IHBD20536
3M/64Septic shockRoux-en-Y hepaticojejunostomyCholangiocarcinomaBiliary stricture11BiopsyLeft IHBD16557
4M/72FeverRoux-en-Y hepaticojejunostomyCholangiocarcinomaBiliary stricture18BiopsyLeft IHBD30485
5F/53Abdominal painRoux-en-Y hepaticojejunostomyCholedochal cystBile duct stone13EHLLeft IHBD22491
6F/58Abdominal painRoux-en-Y hepaticojejunostomyCholedochal cystBile duct stone28EHLLeft IHBD17386
7M/68FeverRoux-en-Y hepaticojejunostomyCholedocholithiasisBile duct stone11EHLRight IHBD19330
8F/81FeverRoux-en-Y choledochojejunostomyCholedocholithiasisBile duct stone13EHLLeft IHBD17330
9M/75Jaundice, feverRoux-en-Y hepaticojejunostomyCholangiocarcinomaBiliary stricture17BiopsyLeft IHBD14291
10M/75Abdominal painRoux-en-Y esophagojejunostomyGastric cancerBiliary stricture14BiopsyLeft IHBD27274
11M/80Abdominal painRoux-en-Y esophagojejunostomyGastric cancerBile duct stone14EHLLeft IHBD16223
12F/65FeverRoux-en-Y choledochojejunostomyCholedocholithiasisBile duct stone17EHLLeft IHBD29192
13M/83FeverRoux-en-Y hepaticojejunostomyCholedocholithiasisBile duct stone16EHLLeft IHBD2770

F, female; M, male; EHL, electrohydraulic lithotripsy; IHBD, intrahepatic bile duct.



Successful bile duct stone removal was achieved in all cases after PTCS with SpyDS (8/8). The median maximum bile duct stone size and the median number of stones were 15.5 mm (range, 13 to 37 mm) and 5 (range, 1 to 8), respectively. The median total number of sessions until complete stone clearance was 2 (range, 1 to 3), and EHL was used for stone fragmentation in all cases of bile duct stones (Table 2). No recurrence was observed during the follow-up.

Table 2. Clinical Outcomes of the Enrolled Patients with Bile Duct Stones

Case No.Sex/age, yrTechnical successTotal number of session until complete stone removalRemoval methodMaximum bile duct stone size, mmNo. of stonesDuct clearanceProcedure time, minAdverse events
2F/78Yes1EHL214Yes52No
5F/53Yes2EHL168YesFirst: 52Second: 51No
6F/58Yes2EHL211YesFirst: 31Second: 18No
7M/68Yes2EHL136YesFirst: 71Second: 80No
8F/81Yes1EHL135Yes42No
11M/80Yes2EHL156YesFirst: 41Second: 21No
12F/65Yes3EHL373YesFirst: 52Second: 59Third: 43No
13M/83Yes1EHL155Yes63No

F, female; M, male; EHL, electrohydraulic lithotripsy.



SpyBite forceps-guided target biopsies were successful in all five cases of biliary stricture. Papillary/circumferential masses and irregular surfaces with neovascularization, suggestive of malignancy, were observed under direct cholangioscopy in all cases. The specimens obtained using SpyBite forceps were found to be adequate for pathologic evaluation and were consistent with adenocarcinoma. The final diagnoses were as follows: recurrent cholangiocarcinoma (n=3) and cholangiocarcinoma (n=2). Of the three patients with recurrent cholangiocarcinoma, one patient underwent surgical resection and two patients received chemotherapy with placement of a biliary metal stent. Of the two patients diagnosed with cholangiocarcinoma, one patient died of pneumonia, disseminated intravascular coagulation, and acute kidney injury 311 days later, and the other patient underwent intraductal radiofrequency ablation with placement of a metal stent through PTBD (Table 3).

Table 3. Clinical Outcomes of the Enrolled Patients with Indeterminate Stricture

Case No.Sex/
age, yr
Total No. of
sessions
Technical
success
Procedure
time (min)
Findings of SpyDSAdverse eventsHistopathologyFinal
diagnosis
Treatment/
follow-up
1F/761Yes25Papillary mass with tortuous vesselsNoAdenocarcinomaCCDeath*
3M/641Yes27Irregular surface and circumferential mass with tumor vesselNoAdenocarcinomaRecurred CCChemotherapy with metal stenting
4M/721Yes31Circumferential mass with tumor vessel and easy oozingNoAdenocarcinomaRecurred CCSurgery
9M/751Yes23Papillary mass with tortuous vesselsNoAdenocarcinomaRecurred CCChemotherapy with metal stenting
10M/751Yes24Circumferential mass with tumor vesselNoAdenocarcinomaCCIntraductal RFA with metal stenting

SpyDS, Spyglass DS direct visualization system; F, female; M, male; CC, cholangiocarcinoma; RFA, radiofrequency ablation.

*The patient died 311 days after the procedure from pneumonia, disseminated intravascular coagulation, and acute kidney injury.


In an era of advanced endoscopic procedures, including ERCP, EUS, and DAE, the need for PTCS, which can directly visualize the bile duct, has been reduced. However, in some cases in which the endoscopic approach is technically difficult, such as in patients with a Roux-en-Y reconstruction, PTCS can be a valuable procedure.14 However, few studies on PTCS performed with SpyDS have been conducted to date.

SpyDS-assisted PTCS offers several advantages over the traditional PTCS as follows: (1) it can be performed with a 12-F cutaneobiliary fistula, which requires less time and causes less pain; (2) a four-way deflected steering allows for maneuverability of the scope; (3) it has a low risk of device-transmitted infection owing to its sterile packaging; and (4) a dedicated irrigation channel maintains clear visualization of the bile duct. Furthermore, the newly developed SpyDS technology offers improved imaging quality with a wider field of view and more easily passed accessory instruments than the first-generation Spyglass system.15

Our study demonstrated the safety, feasibility, and diagnostic and therapeutic success of SpyDS-assisted PTCS in patients with a prior Roux-en-Y reconstruction. The technical success rate was 100% (13/13). SpyDS-assisted PTCS with EHL for bile duct stone removal achieved complete duct clearance in all cases (9/9). Additionally, in patients with a biliary stricture, the diagnostic accuracy of both optical target biopsy using SpyBite forceps and visual assessment with SpyDS was 100%. Du et al.16 reported their experience with PTCS using SpyDS for the evaluation of biliary strictures in four patients with failed conventional ERCP (one with biliary cannulation failure, three with altered biliary-intestinal anatomy). Although the authors showed the feasibility, safety, and high accuracy of the procedure, their results were limited because of the lack of follow-up of outcomes and the noninclusion of cases with bile duct stones which were present in our study. Tripathi et al.17 reported that procedures involving five patients with Roux-en-Y reconstruction managed with SpyDS-guided PTCS were technically successful and did not result in any adverse events. The authors suggested that SpyDS-guided PTCS may be considered for various diagnostic and therapeutic indications, including biliary stricture management, biliary tract biopsy, bile duct stone removal, and undiagnosed biliary stasis evaluation, particularly in patients with a surgically altered anatomy. As more patients were included in our study than in the study by Tripathi et al.,17 our study provides more preliminary evidence on the safety and effectiveness of PTCS using SpyDS in patients with a prior Roux-en-Y reconstruction. However, complete stone removal with PTCS would be difficult in cases of bile duct stones along multiple intrahepatic bile ducts; thus, proper selection of patients is crucial for procedural success. In the present study, as the bile duct stones were within a single intrahepatic duct or in the common bile duct in all cases, the procedure could be successfully performed.

The overall adverse event and mortality rates related to PTCS using a conventional cholangioscope have been reported to be 6% to 17% and 0% to 0.6%, respectively.14,18,19 However, in our study, no procedural adverse events occurred. Most of the adverse events reported in patients undergoing PTCS occurred during the preparatory stages, including initial PTBD insertion and tract dilation. In the current study, initial bile duct puncture and catheter insertion for PTBD were technically convenient because the median bile duct diameter was 14 mm (range, 11 to 28 mm). Complications related to tract dilation could be eliminated because tract dilation only up to 12 F was required. We considered that the lack of adverse events could be explained by performing PTCS with SpyDS after improving cholangitis through sufficient antibiotic treatment with maintenance of the PTBD catheter and implementation of continuous irrigation with sterile normal saline during SpyDS-assisted PTCS.

PTCS procedures require a shorter distance to access the bile duct than the endoscopic approach. However, the relatively long length of the SpyDS scope (because the SpyDS was originally designed to be inserted into an accessory channel in a duodenoscope for a peroral approach) may be troublesome. The development of a shorter SpyDS scope for PTCS could make the procedure more convenient. Furthermore, compared to the conventional PTCS, SpyDS-assisted PTCS has several drawbacks as follows: (1) lower image quality, (2) lack of image-enhanced function, and (3) limited dedicated accessories owing to a relatively smaller accessory channel. The clinical impact of SpyDS on biliary diseases can progress if these shortcomings are improved.

The current study had several limitations. First, it was a retrospective, small-scale, single-center pilot investigation. Second, as a single-arm study, no comparison was made with other methods, including conventional PTCS, EUS-guided intervention, or DAE, with respect to procedural pain or length of hospitalization. Third, our results were limited by the lack of evaluation of long-term outcomes. Fourth, no analysis on cost-effectiveness was performed. However, because the reimbursement of SpyDS varies across different countries, it is difficult to analyze costs in a generalized manner. Despite these limitations, our results are expected to play an important role in future research.

In conclusion, SpyDS-assisted PTCS may be a safe, feasible, and effective diagnostic and therapeutic intervention for biliary diseases in patients with a surgically altered anatomy, especially in those who had undergone a Roux-en-Y reconstruction and require a percutaneous approach. However, our findings need to be validated by further studies.

This study was supported by Wonkwang University 2021.

The author thanks Eun Ha Lee, So Hyung Park, Sung Ju Kim, and In Hee So of the Wonkwang University Hospital for assistance with the procedures. In addition, the author is grateful for the dedication of Hee Heun Kim and Ju Hee Ahn of the Wonkwang University Hospital as physician assistants.

Conceptualization: T.H.K. Data curation: H.K.C., K.H.C., S.H.S. Formal analysis: H.K.C. Funding acquisition: H.K.C. Methodology: H.K.C. Project administration: T.H.K. Visualization: H.K.C., K.H.C. Writing - original draft: H.K.C., K.H.C. Writing - review & editing: T.H.K., S.H.S. Approval of final manuscript: all authors.

  1. Williams EJ, Taylor S, Fairclough P, et al. Are we meeting the standards set for endoscopy? Results of a large-scale prospective survey of endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatograph practice. Gut 2007;56:821-829.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  2. Park CH. Experience of endoscopists in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in surgically altered anatomy patients. Clin Endosc 2020;53:7-8.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  3. Samarasena JB, Nguyen NT, Lee JG. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in patients with roux-en-Y anatomy. J Interv Gastroenterol 2012;2:78-83.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  4. Saumoy M, Kahaleh M. Safety and complications of interventional endoscopic ultrasound. Clin Endosc 2018;51:235-238.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  5. Tsutsumi K, Kato H, Yabe S, et al. A comparative evaluation of treatment methods for bile duct stones after hepaticojejunostomy between percutaneous transhepatic cholangioscopy and peroral, short double-balloon enteroscopy. Therap Adv Gastroenterol 2017;10:54-67.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  6. Krutsri C, Kida M, Yamauchi H, Iwai T, Imaizumi H, Koizumi W. Current status of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in patients with surgically altered anatomy. World J Gastroenterol 2019;25:3313-3333.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  7. Yane K, Katanuma A, Maguchi H, et al. Short-type single-balloon enteroscope-assisted ERCP in postsurgical altered anatomy: potential factors affecting procedural failure. Endoscopy 2017;49:69-74.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  8. Shah RM, Tarnasky P, Kedia P. A review of endoscopic ultrasound guided endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography techniques in patients with surgically altered anatomy. Transl Gastroenterol Hepatol 2018;3:90.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  9. Schumacher B, Othman T, Jansen M, Preiss C, Neuhaus H. Long-term follow-up of percutaneous transhepatic therapy (PTT) in patients with definite benign anastomotic strictures after hepaticojejunostomy. Endoscopy 2001;33:409-415.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  10. Weber A, Gaa J, Rosca B, et al. Complications of percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage in patients with dilated and nondilated intrahepatic bile ducts. Eur J Radiol 2009;72:412-417.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  11. Kim MH, Yasuda K. Percutaneous transhepatic cholangioscopic examination: a necessity for the biliary endoscopist. Gastrointest Endosc 2001;53:695-697.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  12. Ross AS, Kozarek RA. Cholangioscopy: where are we now? Curr Opin Gastroenterol 2009;25:245-251.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  13. Derdeyn J, Laleman W. Current role of endoscopic cholangioscopy. Curr Opin Gastroenterol 2018;34:301-308.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  14. Oh HC. Percutaneous transhepatic cholangioscopy in bilioenteric anastomosis stricture. Clin Endosc 2016;49:530-532.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  15. Karagyozov P, Boeva I, Tishkov I. Role of digital single-operator cholangioscopy in the diagnosis and treatment of biliary disorders. World J Gastrointest Endosc 2019;11:31-40.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  16. Du L, D'Souza P, Thiesen A, et al. Percutaneous transhepatic cholangioscopy for indeterminate biliary strictures using the SpyGlass system: a case series. Endoscopy 2015;47:1054-1056.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  17. Tripathi N, Mardini H, Koirala N, Raissi D, Emhmed Ali SM, Frandah WM. Assessing the utility, findings, and outcomes of percutaneous transhepatic cholangioscopy with SpyglassTM Direct visualization system: a case series. Transl Gastroenterol Hepatol 2020;5:12.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  18. Hwang MH, Tsai CC, Mo LR, et al. Percutaneous choledochoscopic biliary tract stone removal: experience in 645 consecutive patients. Eur J Radiol 1993;17:184-190.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  19. Ponchon T, Genin G, Mitchell R, et al. Methods, indications, and results of percutaneous choledochoscopy: a series of 161 procedures. Ann Surg 1996;223:26-36.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef

Article

Original Article

Gut and Liver 2022; 16(1): 111-117

Published online January 15, 2022 https://doi.org/10.5009/gnl210028

Copyright © Gut and Liver.

Efficacy and Safety of Percutaneous Transhepatic Cholangioscopy with the Spyglass DS Direct Visualization System in Patients with Surgically Altered Anatomy: A Pilot Study

Hyung Ku Chon1,2 , Keum Ha Choi3 , Sang Hyun Seo4 , Tae Hyeon Kim1,2

1Division of Biliopancreas, Department of Internal Medicine, 2Institute of Wonkwang Medical Science, Departments of 3Pathology and 4Radiology, Wonkwang University Hospital, Wonkwang University College of Medicine, Iksan, Korea

Correspondence to:Tae Hyeon Kim
ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9723-2136
E-mail kth@wku.ac.kr

Received: January 22, 2021; Revised: February 25, 2021; Accepted: March 11, 2021

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Background/Aims: Percutaneous transhepatic cholangioscopy (PTCS) is used for the diagnosis and treatment of biliary diseases in patients with failed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, particularly those with surgically altered anatomy. However, few studies are available on the clinical use of Spyglass DS direct visualization system (SpyDS)-assisted PTCS. This study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of SpyDS-assisted PTCS in patients with surgically altered anatomy, particularly those with a Roux-en-Y reconstruction.
Methods: Thirteen patients (six women, median age 71.4 years [range, 53 to 83 years]) with surgically altered anatomy (four Roux-en-Y choledochojejunostomies, seven Roux-en-Y hepaticojejunostomies, and two Roux-en-Y esophagojejunostomies) who underwent SpyDS-assisted PTCS between January 2019 and August 2020 were included and the data was acquired by retrospectively reviewing electronic medical record.
Results: A total of 19 SpyDS-assisted PTCS procedures were performed in the 13 patients: eight had bile-duct stones, and five had biliary strictures. All SpyDS-assisted PTCS procedures were successfully performed. The total procedure time was 42.42±18.0 minutes (mean±standard deviation). Bile duct clearance was achieved in all bile duct stone cases after a median of 2 (range, 1 to 3) procedures. In the five biliary stricture cases, the results of SpyBite forceps-guided targeted biopsy were consistent with adenocarcinoma (100% accuracy). The median hospitalization duration was 20 days (range, 14 to 30 days). No procedure-related morbidity or mortality occurred.
Conclusions: SpyDS-assisted PTCS may be a safe, feasible, and effective procedure for the diagnosis and treatment of biliary diseases in patients with surgically altered anatomy, particularly in those with the Roux-en-Y reconstruction requiring a percutaneous approach. However, our findings need to be validated in further studies.

Keywords: Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, Spyglass, Roux-en-Y anastomosis

INTRODUCTION

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is the gold standard for the diagnosis and treatment of biliary diseases. However, ERCP failure occurs in approximately 5% to 20% of the patients, even in referral centers.1 Surgically altered anatomy, particularly long limbs, as in Roux-en-Y reconstruction, may be related to ERCP failure and present a considerable technical challenge.2,3 If a conventional endoscopic approach using a duodenoscope, a cap-fitted forward-viewing gastroscope, or baby colonoscope fails, device-assisted enteroscopy (DAE)- or endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided intervention may be considered as a secondary modality.4,5 These procedures require additional dedicated devices and should be performed by experts. The complication rate of the procedure has been reported to reach 20% and the steep learning curve associated with the procedure may be problematic.6-8

Percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) is an established technique that may be indicated in cases of previously failed ERCP, particularly in those involving a surgically altered anatomy.9,10 However, the specimen adequacy and diagnostic sensitivity of tissue obtained through PTBD may be unsatisfactory, and bile duct stone clearance with PTBD alone can be difficult. In such cases, percutaneous transhepatic cholangioscopy (PTCS) may be a suitable option because it allows performing target biopsy and stone fragmentation with laser lithotripsy or electrohydraulic lithotripsy (EHL) under direct visualization.11 Before performing a PTCS, fistula dilation to 16–18 F is required because the external diameter of a percutaneous cholangioscope is 4.1 to 4.9 mm.12 However, with the introduction of the Spyglass DS direct visualization system (SpyDS), which has an outer diameter of 10.5 F, cutaneous biliary fistula dilation of up to only 12 F has been possible for PTCS.13 Compared to the classical approach, this novel technique using SpyDS can reduce the pain associated with tract dilation for bile duct access and can shorten the length of hospital stay. Limited data are available on the outcomes of SpyDS-assisted PTCS for biliary stricture management and bile duct stone removal in patients with surgically altered anatomy. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of SpyDS-assisted PTCS in patients with a prior Roux-en-Y reconstruction.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

1. Patients

A total of 76 consecutive patients with surgically altered anatomy who were treated for biliary diseases, including biliary stricture or bile duct stones, between January 2019 and August 2020 at Wonkwang University Hospital, were retrospectively reviewed. Of them, 63 patients were excluded for the following reasons: subtotal gastrectomy with Billroth II anastomosis (n=40), subtotal gastrectomy with Billroth I anastomosis (n=11), DAE (n=6), conventional PTCS (n=2), death due to disease progression after PTBD (n=2), EUS-guided intervention (n=1), and balloon dilation through PTBD (n=1) (Fig. 1). We evaluated the remaining 13 patients with a prior Roux-en-Y reconstruction who underwent PTCS with SpyDS. The patients’ electronic medical records were reviewed for demographic and clinical details, adverse events, findings, procedure reports, and clinical courses. This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Wonkwang University Hospital (IRB number: WKUH-2020-11-011) and conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. Written informed consent to undergo the procedure was obtained from all patients.

Figure 1. Flowchart of patient enrollment.
STG, subtotal gastrectomy; BI, Billroth I, BII, Billroth II; BE-ERCP, balloon enteroscopy-assisted endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography; PTBD, percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage; PTCS, percutaneous transhepatic cholangioscopy; EUS, endoscopic ultrasound.

2. Procedures

Stepwise percutaneous tract dilation with two sessions was performed by a skilled interventional radiologist (S.H.S.). PTBD was performed under fluoroscopic guidance, with an 8-F catheter inserted into the left intrahepatic duct and/or right intrahepatic bile duct, according to a planned anatomical approach to the stricture or bile-duct stones based on radiologic imaging. The percutaneous tract was dilated at least 3 days later by exchanging the 8-F catheter for a 12-F catheter. For sinus tract maturation, PTCS with SpyDS (Boston Scientific, Natick, MA, USA) was performed by two experienced endoscopists (T.H.K. and H.K.C.) at least 9 days after the initial PTBD. A guidewire was inserted into the small bowel lumen through the bilioenteric anastomosis using a PTBD catheter, which was removed thereafter. The SpyDS scope was advanced into the bile duct beside the guidewire. In cases of bile duct stones, predilation of the bilioenteric anastomosis site was performed using an 8-mm balloon (Hurricane RX; Boston Scientific). The stones were fragmented using EHL (EHL-Probe; Walz Elektronik, Rohrdorf, Germany) under direct visualization, and were removed by pushing with the tip of the SpyDS scope, washing with normal saline, or pushing the balloon catheter into the small intestine (Fig. 2). If duct clearance was confirmed by repeating the procedure under direct visualization and cholangiography, the 8-F catheter was inserted and removed 1 to 2 days later based on the follow-up cholangiography. In biliary stricture cases, visual assessment under direct cholangioscopy was performed, and target tissue biopsy using SpyBite forceps (Boston Scientific) was performed in lesions with suspicious malignant features, such as neovascularization or mass formation (Fig. 3). At the end of the procedure, the PTBD catheter was reinserted to drain the biliary tract. An experienced pathologist (K.H.C.) evaluated all specimens. During the procedure, sterile normal saline was continuously applied through an irrigation channel for proper visualization and to avoid cholangiovenous reflux.

Figure 2. Spyglass DS direct visualization system (SpyDS)-assisted percutaneous transhepatic cholangioscopy (PTCS) using electrohydraulic lithotripsy (EHL) for intrahepatic bile duct stone removal. (A) Magnetic resonance imaging showed an approximately 2.1 cm stone (white arrow) in the left intrahepatic bile duct. (B) Initial percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage with an 8-F catheter was performed. (C) Cutaneobiliary fistula dilation up to 12 F was performed at least 3 days later. (D) After cutaneous fistula tract maturation, the SpyDS scope (black arrow) was inserted into the left intrahepatic bile duct beside the guidewire. (E) PTCS with SpyDS (black arrowheads)-guided stone fragmentation using EHL (white open arrows) was performed.

Figure 3. Spyglass DS direct visualization system (SpyDS)-assisted percutaneous transhepatic cholangioscopy (PTCS) using SpyBite forceps for a biliary stricture. (A) Percutaneous transhepatic cholangiography showed dilatation of the intrahepatic bile duct, with stenosis (white arrow) at the upper third of the common bile duct. (B) SpyDS (white arrowheads)-assisted PTCS using SpyBite forceps (black arrow) was performed to evaluate the biliary stricture. (C) Cholangioscopy showed a circumferential mass with tumor vessels at the biliary stricture site, and tissue specimens were obtained using SpyBite forceps (open white arrow). (D) Pathologic examination revealed atypical glands (black arrows) with dysplastic surface epithelium (black arrowheads), compatible with adenocarcinoma (H&E, ×200).

3. Definitions

The PTCS with SpyDS was considered successful if the SpyDS scope was adequately advanced into the bile duct for proper intervention. Procedure time was recorded from the insertion of the SpyDS scope into the cutaneobiliary fistula to the re-insertion of the PTBD catheter. Duct clearance was considered successful when cholangiography and direct cholangioscopy revealed a clear duct. Procedure-related adverse events were investigated by reviewing the medical records, laboratory results, and images, including cholangiography, follow-up computed tomography scans, or magnetic resonance images, after the procedure.

RESULTS

The baseline characteristics and clinical data of the patients included in this study are shown in Table 1 and Supplementary Table 1. A total of 19 PTCS procedures using SpyDS were performed in the 13 patients (six women, median age 71.4 years [range, 53 to 83 years]), eight of whom had bile duct stones and five had a biliary stricture. All SpyDS-assisted PTCS procedures were successfully performed, and no procedure-related morbidity or mortality was observed. For the 19 procedures in the current study, the total procedure time was 42.42±18.0 minutes (mean±standard deviation). The median length of hospitalization and the median follow-up period were 20 days (range, 17 to 30 days) and 330 days (range, 70 to 536 days), respectively.

Table 1 . Baseline Characteristics of the Enrolled Patients.

Case No.Sex/age, yrPresentationAnatomyPrimary disease for surgical resectionBiliary diseaseBile duct diameter, mmProcedureAccess hepatic ductLength of hospital stay, dayFollow-up duration, day
1F/76FeverRoux-en-Y choledochojejunostomyCholedocholithiasisBiliary stricture19BiopsyRight IHBD28311
2F/78Abdominal painRoux-en-Y choledochojejunostomyCholedocholithiasisBile duct stone12EHLLeft IHBD20536
3M/64Septic shockRoux-en-Y hepaticojejunostomyCholangiocarcinomaBiliary stricture11BiopsyLeft IHBD16557
4M/72FeverRoux-en-Y hepaticojejunostomyCholangiocarcinomaBiliary stricture18BiopsyLeft IHBD30485
5F/53Abdominal painRoux-en-Y hepaticojejunostomyCholedochal cystBile duct stone13EHLLeft IHBD22491
6F/58Abdominal painRoux-en-Y hepaticojejunostomyCholedochal cystBile duct stone28EHLLeft IHBD17386
7M/68FeverRoux-en-Y hepaticojejunostomyCholedocholithiasisBile duct stone11EHLRight IHBD19330
8F/81FeverRoux-en-Y choledochojejunostomyCholedocholithiasisBile duct stone13EHLLeft IHBD17330
9M/75Jaundice, feverRoux-en-Y hepaticojejunostomyCholangiocarcinomaBiliary stricture17BiopsyLeft IHBD14291
10M/75Abdominal painRoux-en-Y esophagojejunostomyGastric cancerBiliary stricture14BiopsyLeft IHBD27274
11M/80Abdominal painRoux-en-Y esophagojejunostomyGastric cancerBile duct stone14EHLLeft IHBD16223
12F/65FeverRoux-en-Y choledochojejunostomyCholedocholithiasisBile duct stone17EHLLeft IHBD29192
13M/83FeverRoux-en-Y hepaticojejunostomyCholedocholithiasisBile duct stone16EHLLeft IHBD2770

F, female; M, male; EHL, electrohydraulic lithotripsy; IHBD, intrahepatic bile duct..



Successful bile duct stone removal was achieved in all cases after PTCS with SpyDS (8/8). The median maximum bile duct stone size and the median number of stones were 15.5 mm (range, 13 to 37 mm) and 5 (range, 1 to 8), respectively. The median total number of sessions until complete stone clearance was 2 (range, 1 to 3), and EHL was used for stone fragmentation in all cases of bile duct stones (Table 2). No recurrence was observed during the follow-up.

Table 2 . Clinical Outcomes of the Enrolled Patients with Bile Duct Stones.

Case No.Sex/age, yrTechnical successTotal number of session until complete stone removalRemoval methodMaximum bile duct stone size, mmNo. of stonesDuct clearanceProcedure time, minAdverse events
2F/78Yes1EHL214Yes52No
5F/53Yes2EHL168YesFirst: 52Second: 51No
6F/58Yes2EHL211YesFirst: 31Second: 18No
7M/68Yes2EHL136YesFirst: 71Second: 80No
8F/81Yes1EHL135Yes42No
11M/80Yes2EHL156YesFirst: 41Second: 21No
12F/65Yes3EHL373YesFirst: 52Second: 59Third: 43No
13M/83Yes1EHL155Yes63No

F, female; M, male; EHL, electrohydraulic lithotripsy..



SpyBite forceps-guided target biopsies were successful in all five cases of biliary stricture. Papillary/circumferential masses and irregular surfaces with neovascularization, suggestive of malignancy, were observed under direct cholangioscopy in all cases. The specimens obtained using SpyBite forceps were found to be adequate for pathologic evaluation and were consistent with adenocarcinoma. The final diagnoses were as follows: recurrent cholangiocarcinoma (n=3) and cholangiocarcinoma (n=2). Of the three patients with recurrent cholangiocarcinoma, one patient underwent surgical resection and two patients received chemotherapy with placement of a biliary metal stent. Of the two patients diagnosed with cholangiocarcinoma, one patient died of pneumonia, disseminated intravascular coagulation, and acute kidney injury 311 days later, and the other patient underwent intraductal radiofrequency ablation with placement of a metal stent through PTBD (Table 3).

Table 3 . Clinical Outcomes of the Enrolled Patients with Indeterminate Stricture.

Case No.Sex/
age, yr
Total No. of
sessions
Technical
success
Procedure
time (min)
Findings of SpyDSAdverse eventsHistopathologyFinal
diagnosis
Treatment/
follow-up
1F/761Yes25Papillary mass with tortuous vesselsNoAdenocarcinomaCCDeath*
3M/641Yes27Irregular surface and circumferential mass with tumor vesselNoAdenocarcinomaRecurred CCChemotherapy with metal stenting
4M/721Yes31Circumferential mass with tumor vessel and easy oozingNoAdenocarcinomaRecurred CCSurgery
9M/751Yes23Papillary mass with tortuous vesselsNoAdenocarcinomaRecurred CCChemotherapy with metal stenting
10M/751Yes24Circumferential mass with tumor vesselNoAdenocarcinomaCCIntraductal RFA with metal stenting

SpyDS, Spyglass DS direct visualization system; F, female; M, male; CC, cholangiocarcinoma; RFA, radiofrequency ablation..

*The patient died 311 days after the procedure from pneumonia, disseminated intravascular coagulation, and acute kidney injury..


DISCUSSION

In an era of advanced endoscopic procedures, including ERCP, EUS, and DAE, the need for PTCS, which can directly visualize the bile duct, has been reduced. However, in some cases in which the endoscopic approach is technically difficult, such as in patients with a Roux-en-Y reconstruction, PTCS can be a valuable procedure.14 However, few studies on PTCS performed with SpyDS have been conducted to date.

SpyDS-assisted PTCS offers several advantages over the traditional PTCS as follows: (1) it can be performed with a 12-F cutaneobiliary fistula, which requires less time and causes less pain; (2) a four-way deflected steering allows for maneuverability of the scope; (3) it has a low risk of device-transmitted infection owing to its sterile packaging; and (4) a dedicated irrigation channel maintains clear visualization of the bile duct. Furthermore, the newly developed SpyDS technology offers improved imaging quality with a wider field of view and more easily passed accessory instruments than the first-generation Spyglass system.15

Our study demonstrated the safety, feasibility, and diagnostic and therapeutic success of SpyDS-assisted PTCS in patients with a prior Roux-en-Y reconstruction. The technical success rate was 100% (13/13). SpyDS-assisted PTCS with EHL for bile duct stone removal achieved complete duct clearance in all cases (9/9). Additionally, in patients with a biliary stricture, the diagnostic accuracy of both optical target biopsy using SpyBite forceps and visual assessment with SpyDS was 100%. Du et al.16 reported their experience with PTCS using SpyDS for the evaluation of biliary strictures in four patients with failed conventional ERCP (one with biliary cannulation failure, three with altered biliary-intestinal anatomy). Although the authors showed the feasibility, safety, and high accuracy of the procedure, their results were limited because of the lack of follow-up of outcomes and the noninclusion of cases with bile duct stones which were present in our study. Tripathi et al.17 reported that procedures involving five patients with Roux-en-Y reconstruction managed with SpyDS-guided PTCS were technically successful and did not result in any adverse events. The authors suggested that SpyDS-guided PTCS may be considered for various diagnostic and therapeutic indications, including biliary stricture management, biliary tract biopsy, bile duct stone removal, and undiagnosed biliary stasis evaluation, particularly in patients with a surgically altered anatomy. As more patients were included in our study than in the study by Tripathi et al.,17 our study provides more preliminary evidence on the safety and effectiveness of PTCS using SpyDS in patients with a prior Roux-en-Y reconstruction. However, complete stone removal with PTCS would be difficult in cases of bile duct stones along multiple intrahepatic bile ducts; thus, proper selection of patients is crucial for procedural success. In the present study, as the bile duct stones were within a single intrahepatic duct or in the common bile duct in all cases, the procedure could be successfully performed.

The overall adverse event and mortality rates related to PTCS using a conventional cholangioscope have been reported to be 6% to 17% and 0% to 0.6%, respectively.14,18,19 However, in our study, no procedural adverse events occurred. Most of the adverse events reported in patients undergoing PTCS occurred during the preparatory stages, including initial PTBD insertion and tract dilation. In the current study, initial bile duct puncture and catheter insertion for PTBD were technically convenient because the median bile duct diameter was 14 mm (range, 11 to 28 mm). Complications related to tract dilation could be eliminated because tract dilation only up to 12 F was required. We considered that the lack of adverse events could be explained by performing PTCS with SpyDS after improving cholangitis through sufficient antibiotic treatment with maintenance of the PTBD catheter and implementation of continuous irrigation with sterile normal saline during SpyDS-assisted PTCS.

PTCS procedures require a shorter distance to access the bile duct than the endoscopic approach. However, the relatively long length of the SpyDS scope (because the SpyDS was originally designed to be inserted into an accessory channel in a duodenoscope for a peroral approach) may be troublesome. The development of a shorter SpyDS scope for PTCS could make the procedure more convenient. Furthermore, compared to the conventional PTCS, SpyDS-assisted PTCS has several drawbacks as follows: (1) lower image quality, (2) lack of image-enhanced function, and (3) limited dedicated accessories owing to a relatively smaller accessory channel. The clinical impact of SpyDS on biliary diseases can progress if these shortcomings are improved.

The current study had several limitations. First, it was a retrospective, small-scale, single-center pilot investigation. Second, as a single-arm study, no comparison was made with other methods, including conventional PTCS, EUS-guided intervention, or DAE, with respect to procedural pain or length of hospitalization. Third, our results were limited by the lack of evaluation of long-term outcomes. Fourth, no analysis on cost-effectiveness was performed. However, because the reimbursement of SpyDS varies across different countries, it is difficult to analyze costs in a generalized manner. Despite these limitations, our results are expected to play an important role in future research.

In conclusion, SpyDS-assisted PTCS may be a safe, feasible, and effective diagnostic and therapeutic intervention for biliary diseases in patients with a surgically altered anatomy, especially in those who had undergone a Roux-en-Y reconstruction and require a percutaneous approach. However, our findings need to be validated by further studies.

SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIALS

Supplementary materials can be accessed at https://doi.org/10.5009/gnl210028.

gnl-16-1-111-supple.pdf

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This study was supported by Wonkwang University 2021.

The author thanks Eun Ha Lee, So Hyung Park, Sung Ju Kim, and In Hee So of the Wonkwang University Hospital for assistance with the procedures. In addition, the author is grateful for the dedication of Hee Heun Kim and Ju Hee Ahn of the Wonkwang University Hospital as physician assistants.

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

Conceptualization: T.H.K. Data curation: H.K.C., K.H.C., S.H.S. Formal analysis: H.K.C. Funding acquisition: H.K.C. Methodology: H.K.C. Project administration: T.H.K. Visualization: H.K.C., K.H.C. Writing - original draft: H.K.C., K.H.C. Writing - review & editing: T.H.K., S.H.S. Approval of final manuscript: all authors.

Fig 1.

Figure 1.Flowchart of patient enrollment.
STG, subtotal gastrectomy; BI, Billroth I, BII, Billroth II; BE-ERCP, balloon enteroscopy-assisted endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography; PTBD, percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage; PTCS, percutaneous transhepatic cholangioscopy; EUS, endoscopic ultrasound.
Gut and Liver 2022; 16: 111-117https://doi.org/10.5009/gnl210028

Fig 2.

Figure 2.Spyglass DS direct visualization system (SpyDS)-assisted percutaneous transhepatic cholangioscopy (PTCS) using electrohydraulic lithotripsy (EHL) for intrahepatic bile duct stone removal. (A) Magnetic resonance imaging showed an approximately 2.1 cm stone (white arrow) in the left intrahepatic bile duct. (B) Initial percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage with an 8-F catheter was performed. (C) Cutaneobiliary fistula dilation up to 12 F was performed at least 3 days later. (D) After cutaneous fistula tract maturation, the SpyDS scope (black arrow) was inserted into the left intrahepatic bile duct beside the guidewire. (E) PTCS with SpyDS (black arrowheads)-guided stone fragmentation using EHL (white open arrows) was performed.
Gut and Liver 2022; 16: 111-117https://doi.org/10.5009/gnl210028

Fig 3.

Figure 3.Spyglass DS direct visualization system (SpyDS)-assisted percutaneous transhepatic cholangioscopy (PTCS) using SpyBite forceps for a biliary stricture. (A) Percutaneous transhepatic cholangiography showed dilatation of the intrahepatic bile duct, with stenosis (white arrow) at the upper third of the common bile duct. (B) SpyDS (white arrowheads)-assisted PTCS using SpyBite forceps (black arrow) was performed to evaluate the biliary stricture. (C) Cholangioscopy showed a circumferential mass with tumor vessels at the biliary stricture site, and tissue specimens were obtained using SpyBite forceps (open white arrow). (D) Pathologic examination revealed atypical glands (black arrows) with dysplastic surface epithelium (black arrowheads), compatible with adenocarcinoma (H&E, ×200).
Gut and Liver 2022; 16: 111-117https://doi.org/10.5009/gnl210028

Table 1 Baseline Characteristics of the Enrolled Patients

Case No.Sex/age, yrPresentationAnatomyPrimary disease for surgical resectionBiliary diseaseBile duct diameter, mmProcedureAccess hepatic ductLength of hospital stay, dayFollow-up duration, day
1F/76FeverRoux-en-Y choledochojejunostomyCholedocholithiasisBiliary stricture19BiopsyRight IHBD28311
2F/78Abdominal painRoux-en-Y choledochojejunostomyCholedocholithiasisBile duct stone12EHLLeft IHBD20536
3M/64Septic shockRoux-en-Y hepaticojejunostomyCholangiocarcinomaBiliary stricture11BiopsyLeft IHBD16557
4M/72FeverRoux-en-Y hepaticojejunostomyCholangiocarcinomaBiliary stricture18BiopsyLeft IHBD30485
5F/53Abdominal painRoux-en-Y hepaticojejunostomyCholedochal cystBile duct stone13EHLLeft IHBD22491
6F/58Abdominal painRoux-en-Y hepaticojejunostomyCholedochal cystBile duct stone28EHLLeft IHBD17386
7M/68FeverRoux-en-Y hepaticojejunostomyCholedocholithiasisBile duct stone11EHLRight IHBD19330
8F/81FeverRoux-en-Y choledochojejunostomyCholedocholithiasisBile duct stone13EHLLeft IHBD17330
9M/75Jaundice, feverRoux-en-Y hepaticojejunostomyCholangiocarcinomaBiliary stricture17BiopsyLeft IHBD14291
10M/75Abdominal painRoux-en-Y esophagojejunostomyGastric cancerBiliary stricture14BiopsyLeft IHBD27274
11M/80Abdominal painRoux-en-Y esophagojejunostomyGastric cancerBile duct stone14EHLLeft IHBD16223
12F/65FeverRoux-en-Y choledochojejunostomyCholedocholithiasisBile duct stone17EHLLeft IHBD29192
13M/83FeverRoux-en-Y hepaticojejunostomyCholedocholithiasisBile duct stone16EHLLeft IHBD2770

F, female; M, male; EHL, electrohydraulic lithotripsy; IHBD, intrahepatic bile duct.


Table 2 Clinical Outcomes of the Enrolled Patients with Bile Duct Stones

Case No.Sex/age, yrTechnical successTotal number of session until complete stone removalRemoval methodMaximum bile duct stone size, mmNo. of stonesDuct clearanceProcedure time, minAdverse events
2F/78Yes1EHL214Yes52No
5F/53Yes2EHL168YesFirst: 52Second: 51No
6F/58Yes2EHL211YesFirst: 31Second: 18No
7M/68Yes2EHL136YesFirst: 71Second: 80No
8F/81Yes1EHL135Yes42No
11M/80Yes2EHL156YesFirst: 41Second: 21No
12F/65Yes3EHL373YesFirst: 52Second: 59Third: 43No
13M/83Yes1EHL155Yes63No

F, female; M, male; EHL, electrohydraulic lithotripsy.


Table 3 Clinical Outcomes of the Enrolled Patients with Indeterminate Stricture

Case No.Sex/
age, yr
Total No. of
sessions
Technical
success
Procedure
time (min)
Findings of SpyDSAdverse eventsHistopathologyFinal
diagnosis
Treatment/
follow-up
1F/761Yes25Papillary mass with tortuous vesselsNoAdenocarcinomaCCDeath*
3M/641Yes27Irregular surface and circumferential mass with tumor vesselNoAdenocarcinomaRecurred CCChemotherapy with metal stenting
4M/721Yes31Circumferential mass with tumor vessel and easy oozingNoAdenocarcinomaRecurred CCSurgery
9M/751Yes23Papillary mass with tortuous vesselsNoAdenocarcinomaRecurred CCChemotherapy with metal stenting
10M/751Yes24Circumferential mass with tumor vesselNoAdenocarcinomaCCIntraductal RFA with metal stenting

SpyDS, Spyglass DS direct visualization system; F, female; M, male; CC, cholangiocarcinoma; RFA, radiofrequency ablation.

*The patient died 311 days after the procedure from pneumonia, disseminated intravascular coagulation, and acute kidney injury.


References

  1. Williams EJ, Taylor S, Fairclough P, et al. Are we meeting the standards set for endoscopy? Results of a large-scale prospective survey of endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatograph practice. Gut 2007;56:821-829.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  2. Park CH. Experience of endoscopists in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in surgically altered anatomy patients. Clin Endosc 2020;53:7-8.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  3. Samarasena JB, Nguyen NT, Lee JG. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in patients with roux-en-Y anatomy. J Interv Gastroenterol 2012;2:78-83.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  4. Saumoy M, Kahaleh M. Safety and complications of interventional endoscopic ultrasound. Clin Endosc 2018;51:235-238.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  5. Tsutsumi K, Kato H, Yabe S, et al. A comparative evaluation of treatment methods for bile duct stones after hepaticojejunostomy between percutaneous transhepatic cholangioscopy and peroral, short double-balloon enteroscopy. Therap Adv Gastroenterol 2017;10:54-67.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  6. Krutsri C, Kida M, Yamauchi H, Iwai T, Imaizumi H, Koizumi W. Current status of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in patients with surgically altered anatomy. World J Gastroenterol 2019;25:3313-3333.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  7. Yane K, Katanuma A, Maguchi H, et al. Short-type single-balloon enteroscope-assisted ERCP in postsurgical altered anatomy: potential factors affecting procedural failure. Endoscopy 2017;49:69-74.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  8. Shah RM, Tarnasky P, Kedia P. A review of endoscopic ultrasound guided endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography techniques in patients with surgically altered anatomy. Transl Gastroenterol Hepatol 2018;3:90.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  9. Schumacher B, Othman T, Jansen M, Preiss C, Neuhaus H. Long-term follow-up of percutaneous transhepatic therapy (PTT) in patients with definite benign anastomotic strictures after hepaticojejunostomy. Endoscopy 2001;33:409-415.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  10. Weber A, Gaa J, Rosca B, et al. Complications of percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage in patients with dilated and nondilated intrahepatic bile ducts. Eur J Radiol 2009;72:412-417.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  11. Kim MH, Yasuda K. Percutaneous transhepatic cholangioscopic examination: a necessity for the biliary endoscopist. Gastrointest Endosc 2001;53:695-697.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  12. Ross AS, Kozarek RA. Cholangioscopy: where are we now? Curr Opin Gastroenterol 2009;25:245-251.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  13. Derdeyn J, Laleman W. Current role of endoscopic cholangioscopy. Curr Opin Gastroenterol 2018;34:301-308.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  14. Oh HC. Percutaneous transhepatic cholangioscopy in bilioenteric anastomosis stricture. Clin Endosc 2016;49:530-532.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  15. Karagyozov P, Boeva I, Tishkov I. Role of digital single-operator cholangioscopy in the diagnosis and treatment of biliary disorders. World J Gastrointest Endosc 2019;11:31-40.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  16. Du L, D'Souza P, Thiesen A, et al. Percutaneous transhepatic cholangioscopy for indeterminate biliary strictures using the SpyGlass system: a case series. Endoscopy 2015;47:1054-1056.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  17. Tripathi N, Mardini H, Koirala N, Raissi D, Emhmed Ali SM, Frandah WM. Assessing the utility, findings, and outcomes of percutaneous transhepatic cholangioscopy with SpyglassTM Direct visualization system: a case series. Transl Gastroenterol Hepatol 2020;5:12.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  18. Hwang MH, Tsai CC, Mo LR, et al. Percutaneous choledochoscopic biliary tract stone removal: experience in 645 consecutive patients. Eur J Radiol 1993;17:184-190.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  19. Ponchon T, Genin G, Mitchell R, et al. Methods, indications, and results of percutaneous choledochoscopy: a series of 161 procedures. Ann Surg 1996;223:26-36.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
Gut and Liver

Vol.16 No.5
September, 2022

pISSN 1976-2283
eISSN 2005-1212

qrcode
qrcode

Supplementary

Share this article on :

  • line

Popular Keywords

Gut and LiverQR code Download
qr-code

Editorial Office