Table 3.

Summary of studies using EUS- choledochoduodenostomy versus EUS-hepaticogastrostomy

Authors	Study design	Patients (n)	Pathology	Intervention	Technical Success rate, % (n)	Clinical Success rate, % (n)	Adverse Events, % (n)
Dhir et al.(2014)[29]	Retrospective, Multicentre	68	MBO	CDS versus HGS	96.8 (31). versus 94.4 (34), P=0.345	NA	9.3 (3) versus 30.5 (11), P=0.03
Kawakubo et al. (2014)[30]	Retrospective, Multicentre	64	MDBO	CDS versus HGS	95 (42/44) versus 95 (19/20), P=1.00	NA	14 (6/44) versus 30 (6/20), P=0.74
Gupta et al. (2014)[19]	Retrospective, Multicentre	240	MBO and Benign BO	CDS versus HGS	84.3 (75/89) versus 90.4 (132/145), P=0.15	NA	32.6 (29/89) versus 35.6 (52/146)
Artifon et al. (2015)[31]	Prospective, Single Centre	49	MDBO	CDS versus HGS	91 (22/24) versus 96 (24/25), P=0.609	77 (17/24) versus 91 (22/25), P=0.234	12.5 (3/24) versus 20 (5/25), P=0.702
Poincloux et al. (2015)[32]	Retrospective, single centre	101	MDBO	CDS versus HGS	96.7 (29/30) versus 98.5 (65/66)	93.1 (27/29) versus 93.8 (61/65)	10 (3/30) versus 22.7 (15/66)
Khashab et al. (2016)[33]	Retrospective, Multicentre	121	MDBO	CDS versus HGS	93.3 (56/60) versus 91.8 (56/61), P=0.75	85.5 (51/60) versus 82.1 (50/61), P=0.64	13.3 (8/60) versus 19.7 (12/61), P=0.37
Guo et al. (2016)[34]	Retrospective, single centre	21	MBO	CDS versus HGS	100 (14/14) versus 100 (7/7)	100 (14/14) versus 100 (7/7)	7.1 (1/14) versus 28.5 (2/7)
Cho et al. (2017)[35]	Prospective, single centre	54	MBO	CDS versus HGS	100 (33/33) versus 100 (21/21)	100 (33/33) versus 85.7 (18/21), P=0.054	15.1 (5/33) versus 9.5 (4/21), P=0.374

CDS: Choledochoduodenostomy; HGS: Hepaticogastrostomy; MHBO: Malignant hilar biliary obstruction; NA: Not available; MBO: Malignant biliary obstruction