Table 2: Published EUS-CP series on Extrahepatic biliary tree drainage (involving ≥5 patients).

YearAuthor IndicationInitial ERCPTechniquesTechnical successClinical successComplication

1996Wiersema et al. [7]10BBothD7/10 (70%)n/a1/10 (10%)
2005 Püspök et al. [19]5MSbT 5/5 (100%)5/5 (100%)No
2006Kahaleh et al. [28]10BothSb8 R; 2 T9/10 (90%)9/10 (90%)3/9 (33%)
2008Yamao et al. [29]5MSbT 5/5 (100%)5/5 (100%)1/5 (20%)
2008Tarantino et al. [30]9BothSb4 T; 4 R; 1 D9/9 (100%)9/9 (100%)No
2009Maranki et al. [12]14BothSb (mostly)8 R; 4 T 12/14 (86%)12/12 (100%)3/14 (21%)
2009Brauer et al. [13]12BothSb4 R; 4 T; 3 D11/12 (92%)11/11 (100%)2/12 (16.7%)
2009Horaguchi et al. [14]8MSbT 8/8 (100%)8/8 (100%)1/8 (12.5%)
2010Kim et al. [10]15BothSm (mostly)R 12/15 (80%)11/12 (91.7%)2/15 (13.3%)
2010Iwamuro et al. [27]7MSbT 7/7 (100%)7/7 (100%)2/7 (28%)
2011Siddiqui et al. [31]8MSbT 8/8 (100%)8/8 (100%)2/8 (25%)
2011Komaki et al. [32]15Mn/a14 T; 1 R15/15 (100%)15/15 (100%)7/15 (47%)
2011Hara et al. [33]18Mn/aT17/18 (94%)17/17 (100%)3/18 (17%)
2011 Park do et al. [11]26BothSmT24/26 (92%)22/24 (92%)5/26 (19%)
2011 Ramírez-Luna et al. [34]9MSbT8/9 (89%)8/8 (100%)1/9 (11%)
2011Fabbri et al. [35]16MSm13 T; 3 R12/16 (75%)12/12 (100%)1/16 (6.25%)
2012Dhir et al. [26]58BothSmR57/58 (98.3%)57/57 (100%)2/58 (3.4%)
2012Iwashita et al. [36]31BothSmR25/31 (81%)25/25 (100%)4//31 (13%)
2012Kim et al. [20]9MSbT9/9 (100%)9/9 (100%)3/9 (33%)
2012Shah* et al. [9]70BothSm46 R; 20 A (or T); 2 D60/70 (85.7%)n/a6/70 (8.5%)
2012Maluf-Filho et al. [37]5MSmT5/5 (100%)3/5 (60%)2/5 (40%)

Total360178 R; 141 T; 20 A; 16 D325/360 (90%)254/258 (98%)51/360 (14%)

EUS-CP: endoscopic-ultrasound-guided cholangiopancreatography, : number of patients, B: benign, M: malignant, Sb: subsequent day, Sm: same day/session, D: ductography, T: transluminal, R: rendezvous, A: antegrade, n/a: not applicable/mentioned. *The biliary tree was accessed at extra- as well as intrahepatic levels. However, the exact puncture site was not specified in the paper.