ArticleEndoscopic ultrasound
Learning curve and predictors of technical failure in EUS-guided antegrade interventions: A retrospective analysis of 138 consecutive cases.
Article in Endoscopic ultrasound. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Long-term palliation of combined malignant gastric outlet and biliary obstruction by using sequentially enteral stents and EUS-guided antegrade biliary and lumen-apposing gastrojejunal stents.Future science OA · 2026Article
- Application and validation of AI-assisted 3D-Printed gastroduodenal anatomical variation models in specialized nursing training.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Objectives: EUS-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) is an alternative to ERCP for patients with altered anatomy or duodenal obstruction. EUS-guided antegrade intervention (EUS-AG) offers physiological drainage with lower reintervention rates and higher stent patency. However, the technical complexity of EUS-AG limits its success rate, and factors associated with technical failure remain controversial. This study aimed to evaluate the learning curve for EUS-AG and identify predictors of technical failure. Patients and Methods: A cohort of 138 patients intended for EUS-AG between December 2019 and January 2025 was analyzed. CUSUM analysis was used to assess the learning curve based on procedure time. Technical failure was defined as failure to advance the antegrade guidewire across the duodenal papilla or bilioenteric anastomosis, failure of stent deployment, or failure to extract stones. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to identify independent predictors of technical failure. Results: The overall technical success rate of EUS-AG was 78.2% (108/138). The CUSUM learning curve demonstrated a significant decrease in procedure time after 50 cases, indicating the transition to the proficiency phase. Multivariable analysis identified preproficiency phase (OR, 9.70; 95% CI, 2.91-32.30; Conclusion: For endoscopists with proficient ERCP experience, the EUS-AG learning curve plateaued after approximately 50 cases. The preproficiency phase, HBO, and EBD were identified as independent predictors of technical failure.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.