超声内镜在可疑胆胰疾病ERCP术前的初步应用

目的 超声内镜(EUS)在可疑胆胰病变患者行内镜逆行胰胆管造影(ERCP)术前的临床应用价值.方法 对15例急性胰腺炎、梗阻性黄疸、胆总管扩张或反复腹痛等病史的患者,经腹部B超、CT和/或MRCP检查可疑胆胰病变,术前行EUS检查诊断,并经ERCP确认.结果 15例患者确诊胆总管结石并行EST取石术9例,确诊壶腹部肿瘤2例,胆管内乳头状瘤2例,十二指肠乳头炎性狭窄1例,胰管结石1例.结论 EUS对可疑胆胰病变有很高的诊断价值,特别能提高胆总管结石确诊率,高于MRCP检查,并能指导ERCP,提高治疗效果,减少风险.     

内镜超声检查对胆总管结石的诊断价值

目的 探讨内镜超声检查(EUS)对胆总管结石的诊断价值。方法 回顾性总结近3年来术前B超、CT等检查未能确定胆总管结石而行EUS并经内镜乳头切开术(EST)取石或手术治疗证实者资料，共45例。结果 45例中，EUS诊断胆总管结石43例，另2例诊断胆管轻度扩张，经EST取出高位胆管小结石；EUS诊断胆总管结石者中，2例分别经EST和手术(合并胆囊结石)，胆管内未见结石。其敏感度为95％，阳性预测值为95％。结石最大1、2cm，最小0．3cm，其中≤0．5cm者26例，45例中B超诊断4例可疑胆总管末端结石，2例怀疑壶腹周围占位性病变。CT诊断3例可疑胆总管结石，1例怀疑壶腹占位性病变。结论 EUS在诊断胆总管结石方面，不论胆管是否扩张，不论结石大小，都明显优于B超和CT，尤其是小结石，可与ERCP相媲美，而比ERCP更少侵袭性，更安全。     

EUS和MRCP对胆总管结石的诊断价值

目的比较超声内镜(EUS)和磁共振胰胆管成像(MRCP)对胆总管结石的临床诊断价值。方法回顾性分析2011年4月至2013年4月我院诊治的65例胆总管扩张患者的临床资料,比较分析EUS、MRCP检查结果,比较两者对胆总管下段结石诊断的准确率、敏感性及特异性。结果 65例患者中,经手术或ERCP证实合并胆总管结石56例,EUS和MRCP诊断胆总管结石准确率分别为93.8%和83.1%,敏感性分别为94.6%和85.7%,特异性分别为88.9%和66.7%。通过计算Youden指数,JEUS=0.89;JMRCP=0.76,说明EUS在胆总管结石的诊断价值要高于MRCP。结论 EUS诊断胆总管结石较MRCP具有敏感性、特异性及准确性高的优势。     

超声内镜与磁共振胰胆管成像对胆总管泥沙样结石的诊断价值

目的 本研究旨在探讨超声内镜(EUS)与磁共振胰胆管成像(MRCP)在胆总管泥沙样结石诊断中的价值。方法 回顾性分析2020年4月至2023年4月于保定市第一中心医院住院治疗的疑似胆总管泥沙样结石患者192例,经纳入与排除标准筛选,最终纳入182例患者作为研究对象。所有患者首先进行MRCP检查,若MRCP结果提示泥沙样结石则直接行内窥镜逆行胰胆管造影(ERCP)检查,其余患者依次行EUS和ERCP。以ERCP造影联合乳头括约肌切开取石(EST)作为诊断胆总管泥沙样结石的金标准,将各项检查结果与取石结果进行比较。结果 EUS、MRCP和EUS联合MRCP检出胆总管泥沙样结石的阳性率分别为81.76%、65.38%和86.49%;在经ERCP下EST所证实的阳性结果中,EUS检出胆总管泥沙样结石的敏感度、特异度和准确度分别为93.08%、83.33%和91.89%;MRCP为72.56%、77.78%和73.08%;EUS联合MRCP为98.46%、88.89%和97.30%。结论 EUS和MRCP在胆总管泥沙样结石的诊断中都具有一定潜力,但EUS在准确性方面更具优势。EUS联合MRCP可...     

内镜超声在非确定性胆总管结石经内镜 逆行胰胆管造影术前的应用价值

目的研究非确定性胆总管结石患者在经内镜逆行胰胆管造影（endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography,ERCP）术前行内镜超声检查术（endoscopic ultrasound,EUS）的临床价值。方法回顾性分析2017年1月—2019年12月天津市南开医院因临床表现和磁共振胰胆管成像术（magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography,MRCP）结果不相符的132例非确定性胆总管结石患者的资料。将患者分为A、B两组：A组MRCP显示有结石、临床表现可疑无结石,B组MRCP显示无结石、临床表现可疑有结石。患者均行EUS,根据EUS结果决定是否行ERCP,以ERCP结果和随访结果为金标准分析EUS的诊断准确率。结果132例患者经诊断金标准最终确认胆总管结石阳性87例,阴性45例。44例（33.3%）患者EUS阴性,经随访结果确认无结石,避免了不必要的ERCP。EUS诊断胆总管结石的灵敏度、特异度、准确率、阳性预测值、阴性预测值分别为95.40%（83/87）、97.78%（44/45）、96.21%（127/132）、98.81%（83/84）、91.67%（44/48）,MRCP诊断胆总管结石的灵敏度、特异度、准确率、阳性预测值、阴性预测值分别为66.67%（58/87）、82.22%（37/45）、71.97%（95/132）、87.88%（58/66）、56.06%（37/66）。两者灵敏度、准确率、阳性预测值、阴性预测值相比,差异均有统计学意义（P均＜0.05）。EUS对胆总管结石的诊断和最终诊断结果具有显著一致性（Kappa=0.917,P＜0.001）,MRCP对胆总管结石的诊断和最终诊断结果一致性较好（Kappa=0.439,P＜0.001）。EUS对A组MRCP假阳性的检出率高于对B组MRCP假阴性的检出率[8/8比89.66%（26/29）,P＜0.001]。结论EUS对非确定性胆总管结石的诊断优于MRCP,ERCP术前应用EUS可减少不必要的ERCP操作或避免结石遗漏。     

胰腺结石的超声内镜检查和ERCP的对比研究

目的探讨胰腺结石的EUS和ERCP表现及其诊断价值.方法分析经手术或内镜下胰管取石确诊35例胰腺结石患者的EUS和ERCP检查结果.结果 35例中ERCP诊断27例(78.3%),8例诊断不明.伴有胰实质结石的4例患者ERCP均未能对胰实质结石做出诊断.而EUS诊断33例(94.3%),其中4例胰实质结石全部显示,2例胰管小结石未能诊断,EUS和ERCP联合检查全部35例均获得诊断.结论 ERCP联合EUS可提高胰腺结石诊断的准确率.     

超声内镜对胆总管小结石的诊断价值

为评估超声内镜检查术（endoscopic ultrasonography,EUS）对胆总管小结石的诊断价值,纳入2018年1月—2021年7月在东南大学附属中大医院住院并诊断为可疑胆总管结石的患者60例。所有患者于同一次住院期间行EUS及磁共振胰胆管成像（magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography,MRCP）。以经内镜逆行胰胆管造影、开腹探查或腹腔镜胆总管探查结果为金标准,比较EUS及MRCP对胆总管结石的诊断结果,计算2种检查方法的灵敏度、特异度、阳性预测值、阴性预测值。结果显示,60例患者中46例确诊胆总管结石,EUS诊断准确43例,MRCP诊断准确35例;14例患者证实胆总管结石阴性,EUS诊断准确12例,MRCP诊断准确13例。EUS诊断灵敏度明显高于MRCP［93.48%（43/46）比76.09%（35/46）,χ2=4.128,P=0.042］。结石直径≤1.0 cm者45例,其中EUS确诊42例,MRCP确诊34例（诊断准确率93.33%比75.56%,χ2=4.145,P=0.042）;直径≤0.8 cm者39例,其中EUS确诊36例,MRCP确诊28例（诊断准确率92.31%比71.79%,χ2=4.266,P=0.039）;直径≤0.5 cm者26例,其中EUS确诊24例,MRCP确诊16例（诊断准确率92.31%比61.54%,χ2=5.038,P=0.021）。在胆总管结石的诊断方面,EUS有明显的诊断优势,且诊断准确性不受结石大小的影响,因此对于临床高度怀疑胆总管结石但MRCP结果阴性的患者,需进一步行EUS。     

超声内镜对核磁共振胰胆管造影术阴性胆总管结石的诊断价值

[目的]探讨超声内镜(endoscopic ultrasonography,EUS)对核磁共振胰胆管造影术(magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography,MRCP)显示阴性的胆总管结石的诊断价值。[方法]回顾性分析完善EUS、MRCP两项检查诊断为胆总管结石81例患者的临床资料。通过SPSS统计学方法、χ~2检验对比分析两项检查方法对胆总管结石的诊断差别,研究EUS对MRCP显示阴性的胆总管结石的影像特征及临床价值。以内镜逆行胰胆管造影术取出结石或采用Seldinger's技术经穿刺道取出结石、经T管胆道镜取出结石为金标准。[结果]81例均经临床治疗取出结石。EUS、MRCP对该81例胆总管结石的检出率分别为90.1%(73/81)、79.0%(64/81),差异有统计学意义(χ~2=9.225,P0.01)。经对EUS诊断为阳性、而MRCP诊断为阴性的12例患者基本信息分析表明,EUS对扩张胆总管的诊断高于MRCP,但二者对扩张胆总管最大直径的测量比较差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。[结论]EUS对胆总管结石的诊断优于MRCP,尤其对MRCP显示阴性的胆总管结石有独特的优势;二者对于扩张胆总管直径的测量,无显著差异。     

内镜超声检查对胆总管扩张的诊断价值

目的评价内镜超声检查(EUS)对胆总管扩张的病因诊断价值。方法32例患者在EUS 前均做过体表B超检查。患者的病因诊断均在病理或手术(包括奥狄括约肌切开取石)后确定。结果(1)32例患者的B超及EUS对胆总管直径的测定结果分别为(1.04±0.41)cm和(0.97±0.36)cm,两者差异无显著性(P＞0.05)。(2)对胆总管扩张的病因诊断率EUS为29/32(90.6％),明显高于体表B超19/32(59.4％),P＜0.01;X线电子计算机断层扫描(CT)21/32(65.6％),P＜0.05。EUS与磁共振胆胰管成像(MRCP)13/16(81.3％)和内镜逆行胰胆管造影(ERCP)31/32(96.9％)诊断率 相似(P＞0.05)。结论EUS对胆总管扩张的病因有很高的诊断价值。     

超声内镜诊断胆总管结石的临床价值分析

目的比较超声内镜（EUS）与B型超声波（US）、CT、磁共振胰胆管成像（MRCP）、内镜逆行胰胆管造影（ERCP）诊断胆总管结石的临床价值。方法对经手术及病理证实的96例胆总管结石患者的EUS、US、CT、MRCP、ERCP检查进行回顾性分析,比较其诊断胆总管结石的敏感性、特异性、阳性预测值（PPV）、阴性预测值（NPV）及准确率。结果 EUS诊断敏感性、特异性、PPV、NPV及准确率均显著高于US（P〈0.05）,敏感性和准确率均显著高于CT（P〈0.05）,各项诊断指标与MRCP和ERCP比较无显著差异。结论 EUS诊断胆总管结石具有准确性和安全性高等优点,与US、CT、MRCP及ERCP相比具有一定优势。     

Endoscopic ultrasonography versus cholangiography for the diagnosis of choledocholithiasis

Background: Choledocholithiasis is a major source of morbidity among patients undergoing cholecystectomy for symptomatic gallstones. There is no consensus on the best approach to diagnosing bile duct stones. We compared the safety, accuracy, diagnostic yield, and cost of EUS- and ERCP-based approaches. Methods: Sixty-four consecutive pre- and post-cholecystectomy patients referred for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) for suspected choledocholithiasis were prospectively evaluated in a blinded fashion. All were stratified into risk groups using predefined criteria. Endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) and ERCP were sequentially performed by two endoscopists. Results: The success rates of EUS and ERCP were 98% and 94%, respectively. The accuracy of EUS for diagnosing choledocholithiasis was 94%. EUS provided an additional or alternative diagnosis to bile duct stones in 21% of patients. The complication rate of EUS was significantly lower than diagnostic ERCP. An EUS-based strategy costs less than diagnostic ERCP in patients with low, moderate, or intermediate risk. Conclusions: EUS is comparably accurate, but safer and less costly than ERCP for evaluating patients with suspected choledocholithiasis. It is useful in patients with an increased risk of having common bile duct stones based on clinical criteria and those with contraindications for or prior unsuccessful ERCP. EUS may enable selective performance of ERCP and improve the cost-effectiveness of diagnosing choledocholithiasis. (Gastrointest Endosc 1998;47:439-48.)     

Where do ERCP, endoscopic ultrasound, magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography, and intraoperative cholangiography fit in the management of acute biliary pancreatitis? A decision analysis model

OBJECTIVES: The role of ERCP in acute biliary pancreatitis (ABP) is controversial. Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) and endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) are modalities for bile duct visualization that could lower costs and prevent ERCP-related complications. We analyzed costs and examined the cost-effectiveness of these modalities to define their role in ABP. METHODS: A decision analysis model of ABP was constructed. The strategies evaluated were 1) ERCP, 2) MRCP followed by ERCP if positive for common bile duct stones (CBDS) or if biliary sepsis ensued, 3) EUS followed by ERCP if positive or if biliary sepsis ensued, and 4) observation with intraoperative cholangiography at the time of cholecystectomy with ERCP only if biliary sepsis ensued. We compared costs and performed cost-effectiveness analysis between strategies at probabilities of CBDS ranging from 0% to 100%. The outcome measures were total costs and costs per ABP death prevented. RESULTS: At probabilities of CBDS < 15%, observation with intraoperative cholangiography is the least expensive strategy, whereas EUS and ERCP are the least expensive strategies at probabilities of 15-58% and >58%, respectively. In terms of cost-effectiveness, at probabilities of CBDS of 7-45%, EUS is the most cost-effective alternative, and at a probability of >45% ERCP is the most cost-effective option. CONCLUSIONS: Total costs and cost-effectiveness ratios of these strategies in patients with ABP are highly dependent on the probability of CBDS.     

Linear EUS for bile duct stones

BACKGROUND: Radial scanning endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) has been shown, in experienced hands, to be a safe and accurate means of detecting bile duct stones. We compared linear array EUS with endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), in our first 50 cases, to evaluate efficacy of this examination as well as the learning curve for this indication. METHODS: A retrospective study was conducted on 50 patients with suspected choledocholithiasis. We compared results of EUS with those of ERCP as a reference. First a linear EUS examination was performed followed by ERCP, at a median interval of 31 days (range 3 to 162 days). RESULTS: The average age of patients was 56 years (range 26 to 76); 48% were women. Fifteen (30%) had undergone cholecystectomy, a mean of 8.5 years (range 1 to 22) before the EUS. EUS compared with ERCP had a 97% sensitivity, 77% specificity, and 90% accuracy. In 14% of patients EUS provided an additional or alternative diagnosis: chronic pancreatitis (n = 3), duodenitis (2), bile duct stricture (1), chronic gastritis (1). No complications were encountered due to EUS. CONCLUSIONS: We found in this early experience that linear array EUS is a reasonably safe and accurate means of detecting choledocholithiasis. Linear array EUS, despite the learning curve, seems to be about equivalent to radial EUS in accuracy. Appropriate use of this less invasive technique may possibly replace the use of diagnostic ERCP.     

Advances of recurrent risk factors and management of choledocholithiasis

Gallstone disease is a common and frequently occurring disease in human, and it is the main disease among the digestive system diseases. The incidence of gallstone disease in western countries is about 5%–22%, and common bile duct stones (CBDS) accounts for 8%–20%. CBDS easily lead to biliary obstruction, secondary cholangitis, pancreatitis, and obstructive jaundice, even endanger life. Therefore, it needs timely treatment once diagnosed. The recurrence of choledocholithiasis after bile duct stones clearance involves complicated factors and cannot be completely elaborated by a single factor. The risk factors for recurrence of choledocholithiasis include bacteria, biliary structure, endoscopic and surgical treatment, and inflammation. The modalities for management of choledocholithiasis are endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), laparoscopic or open common bile duct exploration, dissolving solutions, extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL), percutaneous radiological interventions, electrohydraulic lithotripsy (EHL) and laser lithotripsy. We compare the different benefits between surgery and ERCP. And finally, we make a summary of the current strategy for reducing the recurrence of CBDS and future perspectives for CBDS management.     

Helical computed tomographic cholangiography versus endosonography for suspected bile duct stones: a prospective blinded study in non-jaundiced patients

BACKGROUND: Helical computed tomography performed after intravenous administration of a cholangiographic contrast material (HCT-cholangiography) may be useful for detecting bile duct stones in non-jaundiced patients. However, this method has never been compared with other non-invasive biliary imaging tests. AIMS: To compare prospectively HCT-cholangiography and endosonography (EUS) in a group of non-jaundiced patients with suspected bile duct stones. METHODS: Fifty two subjects underwent both HCT-cholangiography and EUS. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiography (ERCP), with or without instrumental bile duct exploration, served as a reference method, and was successful in all but two patients. RESULTS: Thirty four patients (68%) were found to have choledocholithiasis at ERCP. The sensitivity for HCT-cholangiography in stone detection was 85%, specificity 88%, and accuracy 86%. For EUS the sensitivity was 91%, specificity 100%, and accuracy 94%. The differences were not significant. No serious complications occurred with either method. CONCLUSIONS: HCT-cholangiography and EUS are safe and comparably accurate methods for detecting bile duct stones in non-jaundiced patients.     

Surgery in biliary lithiasis: from the traditional"open" approach to laparoscopy and the"rendezvous" technique

BACKGROUND:According to the current literature, biliary lithiasis is a worldwide-diffused condition that affects almost 20% of the general population. The rate of common bile duct stones (CBDS) in patients with symptomatic cholelithiasis is estimated to be 10% to 33%, depending on patient's age. Compared to stones in the gallbladder, the natural history of secondary CBDS is still not completely understood. It is not clear whether an asymptomatic choledocholithiasis requires treatment or not. For many years, open cholecystectomy with choledochotomy and/or surgical sphincterotomy and cleaning of the bile duct were the gold standard to treat both pathologies. Development of both endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and laparoscopic surgery, together with improvements in diagnostic procedures, influ-enced new approaches to the management of CBDS in associ-ation with gallstones. DATA SOURCES: We decided to systematically review the lit-erature in order to identify all the current therapeutic options for CBDS. A systematic literature search was performed in-dependently by two authors using PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus and the Cochrane Library Central.RESULTS: The therapeutic approach nowadays varies great-ly according to the availability of experience and expertise in each center, and includes open or laparoscopic common bile duct exploration, various combinations of laparoscopic cholecystectomy and ERCP and combined laparoendoscopic rendezvous. CONCLUSIONS: Although ERCP followed by laparoscopic cholecystectomy is currently preferred in the majority of hospitals worldwide, the optimal treatment for concomitant gallstones and CBDS is still under debate, and greatly varies among different centers.     

Endoscopic Ultrasonography Versus Other Diagnostic Modalities in the Diagnosis of Choledocholithiasis

Until recently, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) has been considered the gold standard for the diagnosis of and therapy in patients with suspected choledocholithiasis. However, the non-negligible complication rate of diagnostic and therapeutic ERCP has led investigators to identify different noninvasive diagnostic modalities. Endoscopic ultrasonography has been proved to be of great sensitivity (up to 97%) in the diagnosis of even tiny stones that can be easily masked by contrast medium during ERCP, without any procedure-related complications and with a negative predictive value reaching 100%, meaning that it can accurately and safely identify patients with choledocholithiasis, thereby avoiding inappropriate instrumental exploration of the common bile duct.     

多种内镜检查方法联合应用对胆管狭窄性疾病的诊断价值

目的评估多种内镜检查方法联合应用对胆管狭窄性疾病的诊疗价值。方法回顾性分析36例胆管狭窄性疾病患者的诊断情况。36例患者均进行了超声内镜检查术（EUS）、经内镜逆行胰胆管造影术（ERCP）、胆管内超声检查术（IDUS）,胆道靶向刷检行细胞学涂片、液基薄层细胞学检查,并结合临床资料及组织学病理检查,综合诊断。结果最终诊断胆管恶性病变21例,其中胆管细胞癌9例、十二指肠乳头癌4例、胰腺癌侵犯胆总管4例、肝癌侵犯胆总管4例;胆管良性病变15例,其中胆总管结石9例、肝吸虫感染所致胆管狭窄4例、单纯胆管炎性狭窄1例、外部压迫所致胆管狭窄1例。EUS、ERCP、IDUS及ERCP＋IDUS对胆管狭窄性疾病鉴别诊断的准确率分别为77．8％、88．9％、91．7％、94．4％,ERCP、IDUS及ERCP＋IDUS均明显高于EUS（P均〈0．05）;ERCP＋IDUS对胆管狭窄性疾病鉴别诊断的敏感度、特异度、阳性预测值与阴性预测值分别为95．2％、93．3％、95．2％、93．3％,均高于EUS、ERCP及IDUS单独检查。胆道刷检细胞学、液基薄层细胞学或组织病理学检查,19例诊断为恶性狭窄,17例诊断为良性狭窄,对鉴别胆管狭窄性质诊断的敏感度为90．5％、特异度为100．0％、准确率为94．4％。结论对于胆管狭窄性病变,ERCP＋IDUS可使诊断准确率得到明显提高;联合应用ERCP＋IDUS＋病变胆管的靶向刷检等多种内镜检查方法,诊断准确率更高。     

Magnetic resonance cholangiography using half-Fourier acquisition for diagnosing choledocholithiasis

Objective: Magnetic resonance cholangiography (MRC), using a half-Fourier acquisition single-shot turbo spin-echo (HASTE) sequence, noninvasively provides very rapid (1–2 s) and high-quality images of the biliary tract. We assessed the diagnostic usefulness of HASTE-MRC for choledocholithiasis.
Methods: A total of 101 patients with suspected choledocholithiasis underwent MRC, ultrasonography, and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). In 97 patients in whom ERCP fully depicted the common bile duct, we retrospectively analyzed the capability of MRC to image the common bile duct and to diagnose choledocholithiasis, in comparison with that of ultrasonography.
Results: In 34 patients, ERCP demonstrated bile duct stones, which were confirmed at endoscopic or surgical treatment. The common bile duct was fully delineated in 98% by MRC and in 70% by ultrasonography. MRC (91%) was more sensitive than ultrasonography (71%) for detecting choledocholithiasis (   p < 0.05  ). MRC demonstrated bile duct stones in all patients with stones ≥11 mm but missed calculi in the 29% of patients with small (3–5 mm) stones. MRC was capable of detecting choledocholithiasis regardless of bile duct caliber. The specificity of MRC (100%) was higher than that of ultrasonography (95%).
Conclusion: HASTE-MRC, a fast and noninvasive procedure, can accurately diagnose choledocholithiasis although the detectability for small stones is limited.     

The clinical impact and cost implication of endoscopic ultrasound on use of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in a Canadian university hospital.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) is a safe alternative to endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) for diagnostic biliary imaging in choledocholithiasis. Evidence linking a decline in diagnostic ERCP with the introduction of EUS in clinical practice is limited. OBJECTIVE: To assess the clinical impact and cost implications of a new EUS program on diagnostic ERCP at a tertiary referral centre. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective review was performed of data collected during the first year of EUS at the University of Alberta Hospital (Edmonton, Alberta). Patients were referred for ERCP because of suspicion of choledocholithiasis based on clinical, biochemical and/or radiological parameters. If they were assessed to have an intermediate probability of choledocholithiasis, EUS was performed first. ERCP was performed if EUS suggested choledocholithiasis, whereas patients were clinically followed for six months if their EUS was normal. Cost data were assessed from a third-party payer perspective, and cost savings were expressed in terms of ERCP procedures avoided. RESULTS: Over 12 months, 90 patients (63 female, mean age 58 years) underwent EUS for suspected biliary tract abnormalities. EUS suggested choledocholithiasis in 20 patients (22%), and this was confirmed by ERCP in 17 of the 20 patients. EUS was normal in 69 patients, and none underwent a subsequent ERCP during a six-month follow-up period. One patient had pancreatic cancer and did not undergo ERCP. The sensitivity and specificity of EUS for choledocholithiasis were 100% and 96%, respectively. A total of 440 ERCP procedures were performed over the same 12-month period, suggesting that EUS resulted in a 14% reduction in ERCP procedures (70 of 510). There were no complications of EUS. The cost of 90 EUS procedures was $42,840, compared with $108,854 for 70 ERCP procedures. The cost savings for the first year were $66,014. CONCLUSION: EUS appears to be accurate, safe and cost effective in diagnostic biliary imaging for suspected choledocholithiasis. The impact of EUS is the avoidance of ERCP in selected cases, thereby preventing the risk of complications. Diagnostic ERCP should not be performed in centres and regions with physicians trained in EUS.