Table 3.

Comparative studies among different techniques of biliary drainage

Ref.	Design	Technique	No. of patients	Technical success rate	Complication rate
Artifon et al[33]	PS	EUS-HGA vs EUS-CDS	49	96% vs 91%	20% vs 12.5%
Khashab et al[34]	PS	EUS-HGA vs EUS-CDS	121	91.8 vs 93.3%	19.6% vs 13.3%
Sharaiha et al[16]	RS rev	PTBD vs EUS-BD	60	84.6% vs 91.4%	25% vs 13%
Artifon et al[7]	PS	PTBD vs EUS-CDS	25	100% vs 100%	25% vs 15.3%
Bapaye et al[8]	RS	PTBD vs EUS-BD	50	100% vs 92%	46% vs 20%
Bill et al[10]	RS	PTBD vs EUS-RV	50	100% vs 76%	17% vs 28%
Jang et al[28]	PS	PTGD vs EUS-GBD	29	97% vs 97%	3% vs 7%
Khashab et al[9]	PS	PTBD vs EUS-BD	73	100% vs 86.4%	39.2% vs 18.2%

PS: Prospective study; RS: Retrospective study; Rev: Review; EUS-BD: Endoscopic ultrasonography-guided biliary drainage; EUS-HGA: Endoscopic ultrasonography-guided hepatogastric anastomosis; EUS-CDS: Endoscopic ultrasonography-guided choledochoduodenostomy; EUS-RV: Endoscopic ultrasonography-guided rendezvous; EUS-GBD: Echoendoscopic transgallbladder drainage.