ReviewMedicina (Kaunas, Lithuania)2026
Current Evidence on Endoscopic Biliary Drainage in the Era of Surgically Altered Anatomy: A Narrative Review.
Review in Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
19 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) remains the reference standard for biliary drainage, yet it fails in up to 15% of cases, most notably when a surgically altered anatomy (SAA) is present. The expanding use of bariatric and oncologic gastrointestinal surgery has increased the number of patients in whom the papilla is displaced, unreachable, or replaced by a biliodigestive anastomosis, making conventional access difficult or impossible. This narrative review appraises the current evidence on endoscopic biliary drainage in SAA, focusing on procedural efficacy, anatomical peculiarities, adverse-event profiles and technical considerations to guide clinical decision-making. Available strategies include luminal techniques, duodenoscope-assisted ERCP, forward-viewing (cap-assisted colonoscope) ERCP, and enteroscope-assisted ERCP, as well as endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD), encompassing EUS-guided hepaticogastrostomy, EUS-guided antegrade stenting, EUS-guided rendezvous and EUS-directed transgastric/transenteric ERCP (EDGE/EDEE), and laparoscopic-assisted ERCP (LA-ERCP). No single approach is universally superior and available comparative data is mainly retrospective and affected by major selection bias. Technique selection should be tailored to the reconstruction type, indication (benign vs. malignant), limb length, expected survival, and local expertise, ideally within a multidisciplinary, high-volume setting. Adequately powered randomized trials incorporating quality-of-life and cost-effectiveness endpoints are still needed to define the optimal first-line strategy. This literature review encompasses the multiple strategies to achieve biliary drainage in surgically altered anatomy, highlighting strengths and weaknesses of each technique, as well as the preferred approach for each type of anatomical reconstruction.
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.