Skip to main content
. 2018 Feb 8;11(4):305–308. doi: 10.14740/gr1059w

Table 3. Comparison of Outcomes Between Patients With (Group A) and Those Without (Group B) Surgically Altered Upper Gastrointestinal Anatomy.

Group A (N = 6) Group B (N = 6) Two-tailed P-value Odds ratio 95% CI
Mean age (SD), years 66.6 (14.3) 82.0 (11.5) 0.068a - -1.376 - 32.043
Male, n 6 2 0.060b - 0.968 - 9.302
Primary cancer, n 0.545b 0.23 0.25 - 1.442
  Pancreato-biliary 3 (pancreas 2, biliary tract 1) 5 (pancreas 4, biliary tract 1)
  Others 3 (gastric cancer) 1 (HCC)
Reasons for EUS-HGS, n 1.000b 1 0.323 - 3.101
  Failed ERCP 3 3
  Failed passage of the endoscope 3 (malignant duodenal stricture 1, malignant afferent loop stricture 2) 3 (malignant duodenal stricture)
Procedural success, n 6 6 - - -
Mean procedural time (SD), min 35.0 (9.4) 47.5 (13.0) 0.085a - -2.108 - 27.108
Stent migration, n 0 0 - - -
Stent dislocation, n 0 0 -
Biliary peritonitis, n 0 0 - - -
Liver abscess, n 1 0 1.000b - -
Mean intraperitoneal stent length (SD), mm 11.6 (4.4) 19.8 (4.8) 0.012a - 2.185 - 14.147
Mean intragastric stent length (SD), mm 57.8 (7.6) 57.0 (7.2) 0.850a - -10.432 - 8.766

HCC: hepatocellular carcinoma; EUS-HGS: endoscopic ultrasound-guided hepaticogastrostomy; ERCP: endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography; SD: standard deviation; CI: confidence interval. aStudent’s t-test, bFisher’s exact test.