Table 2.

Major studies of EUS-guided biliary drainage in hilar biliary obstruction

Authors	Number of patients Mode of drainage	Technical success/clinical success	Adverse effects
Bories et al.[18]	n=11 All HGS	Technical and clinical 10/11 (90.9%) (7 plastic stents and 3 SEMS)	1 stent block 1 transient ileus 1 biloma 1 cholangitis
Ogura et al.[19]	n=11 7 bridging, 4 HDS	Technical and clinical 11/11 (100%)	None
Ogura et al.[20]	n=10 8 HGS, 2 HDS	Technical success 10/10 (100%) Clinical success 90%	None
Moryoussef et al.[21]	n=18 18/18 HGS	Technical success 17/18 (94.4%) Clinical success 72.2% (early - 7 days)/68% (late - 30 days)	3/18 (16.7%) 1 severe hemorrhage 1 stent obstruction 1 stent migration
Minaga et al.[22]	n=30 HGS 28/30, HDS 2/30	Technical success 29/30 (96.6%) Clinical success 22/29 (75.9%)	Early - 10% (3/30) (mild peritonitis managed conservatively) Late - 23.3% (7/30) (cholangitis due to stent dysfunction)
Kongkam et al.[24]	n=36 CERES (19) versus PTBD (17) ERCP+HGS=17 ERCP+HDS=1 ERCP+HGS+HDS=1	Technical success - CERES 84% (16/19) versus PTBD 100% (P<0.05) Clinical success - CERES 78.9% (15/19) versus 76.5% (13/17)	CERES 26.3% (5/19) versus PTBD 35.5% (6/17) (P=0.56) Median time to re-intervention - CERES 92 days versus PTBD 40 days (P=0.006) Recurrent biliary obstruction at 3 and 6 months - CERES 26.7% and 22.2% versus PTBD 88.2% and 100% (P<0.01)

HGS: Hepaticogastrostomy; SEMS: Self-expandable metal stent; HDS: Hepaticoduodenostomy; PTBD: Percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage; CERES: Combined ERCP with EUS