Skip to main content
. 2021 Mar 26;10(2):124–133. doi: 10.4103/EUS-D-20-00159

Table 4.

Comparison of the outcomes between the EUS-biliary drainage and other biliary drainage modalities groups

Characteristics All patients (n=31), n (%) Other (n=20), n (%) EUS-HG (n=11), n (%) P*
Duodenal revision
 No 21 (67.7) 14 (70) 7 (63.6) 1
 Yes 10 (32.3) 6 (30) 4 (36.4)
Biliary revision
 No 24 (77.4) 14 (70) 10 (90.9) 0.37
 Yes 7 (22.6) 6 (30) 1 (9.1)
Duodenal complication
 No 26 (83.9) 16 (80) 10 (90.9) 0.63
 Yes 5 (16.1) 4 (20) 1 (9.1)
Biliary complication
 No 13 (41.9) 6 (30) 7 (63.6) 0.13
 Yes 18 (58.1) 14 (70) 4 (36.4)
Clavien-Dindo classification
 I 5 (27.7) 3 (21.4) 2 (50) 0.18
 IIIb 10 (55.6) 9 (64.3) 1 (25)
 IVa 1 (5.6) 1 (25)
 V 2 (11.1) 2 (14.3)
Significant complication (Clavien-Dindo classification)
 No 18 (58.1) 9 (45) 9 (81.8) 0.07
 Yes 13 (41.9) 11 (55) 2 (18.2)
Death before 30 days
 No 25 (80.6) 16 (80) 9 (81.8) 1
 Yes 6 (19.4) 4 (20) 2 (18.2)

*Chi-square or Fisher’s exact or Wilcoxon’s test P values. HG: Hepaticogastrostomy