Comparing EUS-directed Transgastric ERCP (EDGE) Versus Laparoscopic-Assisted ERCP Versus Enteroscopic ERCP: A Network Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND:Management of choledocholithiasis in patients with Roux-en-Y gastric bypass surgery is challenging. This study aims to compare technical success rates, adverse events, and procedural time between 3 current approaches: endoscopic ultrasound-directed transgastric Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) (EDGE), enteroscopy-assisted ERCP (E-ERCP), and laparoscopic-assisted ERCP (LA-ERCP). METHODS:A systematic search of 5 databases was conducted. Direct and network meta-analyses were performed to compare interventions using the random effects model. A significance threshold of P < 0.05 was applied. RESULTS:Sixteen studies were included. On direct meta-analysis, technical success rates were comparable between EDGE and LA-ERCP (odds ratio: 0.768, CI: 0.196-3.006, P = 0.704, I2 = 14.13%). However, EDGE and LA-ERCP showed significantly higher success rates than E-ERCP. No significant differences in adverse events were found between EDGE versus LA-ERCP, EDGE versus E-ERCP, and LA-ERCP versus E-ERCP on direct meta-analysis. In terms of procedural time, EDGE was significantly shorter than E-ERCP [mean difference (MD): -31 minutes, 95% CI: -40.748 to -21.217, P < 0.001, I2 = 19.89%), and E-ERCP was shorter than LA-ERCP (MD: -44.567 minutes, 95% CI: -76.018 to -13.116, P = 0.005, I2 = 0%). EDGE also demonstrated a significant time advantage over LA-ERCP (MD: -78.145 minutes, 95% CI: -104.882 to -51.407, P < 0.001, I2 = 0%). All findings were consistent with network meta-analysis on random effects model. The heterogeneity of the model was low. CONCLUSIONS:EDGE and LA-ERCP showed superior technical success rates compared with E-ERCP. Adverse events did not significantly differ among the three approaches. Furthermore, EDGE demonstrated the shortest procedural duration. We recommend considering EDGE as a first-choice procedure.