Table 2.

Comparative studies of endoscopic ultrasound guided hepaticogastrostomy and choledochoduodenostomy

Ref.	Study design, Country	Number of HGS vs CDS	Technical success CDS vs HGS, %	Clinical success HGS vs CDS, %	Adverse events, HGS vs CDS, %
Tyberg et al[86], 2022	Multicenter,International	95 vs 87	92% vs 92%, NS	86% vs 100%, NS	21% vs 26%, P = 0.17
Minaga et al[85], 2019	Multicenter, Japan	24 vs 23	87.5% vs 82.6%, P = 0.028	100% vs 94.7%, P = 0.0475	28.6% vs 21%, P = 0.583
Cho et al[94], 2017	Single Center, Korea	21 vs 33	100% vs 100%, NS	86% vs 100%, P = 0.054	19% vs 15%, NS
Amano et al[93], 2017	Single Center, Japan	9 vs 11	100% vs 100%, NS	100% vs 100%, NS	11% vs 18%, NS
Ogura et al[92], 2016	Single Center, Japan	26 vs 13	100% vs 100%	92% vs 100%, P = 0.0497	8% vs 46%, P = 0.005
Guo et al[91], 2016	Single Center, China	7 vs 14	100% vs 100%, NS	100% vs 100%, NS	14% vs 14%, NS
Khashab et al[90], 2016	Multicenter,International	61 vs 60	92% vs 93%, P = 0.75	82% vs 85%, P = 0.64	20% vs 13%, P = 0.37
Artifon et al[84], 2015	Single Center, Brazil	24 vs 25	96% vs 91%	88% vs 70%	20% vs 13%
Poincloux et al[64], 2015	Single Center, France	66 vs 26	94% vs 96.7%, NS	93.8% vs 93.1%, NS	15% vs 7.6%, NS
Kawakubo et al[88], 2014	Multicenter, Japan	20 vs 44	95% vs 95%, NS	95% vs 93%, NS	4% vs 15%, NS
Park et al[89], 2015	Multicenter, Korea	20 vs 12	100% vs 92%, P > 0.99	90% vs 92%, P > 0.99	25% vs 33%, P = 0.044
Prachayakul and Aswakul[87], 2013	Single Center, Thailand	15 vs 6	93% vs 100%, NS	93% vs 100%, NS	0% vs 33%, NS
Kim et al[95], 2012	Single Center, Retrospective	13 (9 CDS; 4 HGS)	100% vs 75%, NS	100% vs 50%, NS	22% vs 50%, NS

NS: Not significant; HGS: Hepaticogastrostomy; CDS: Choledochoduodenostomy.