LAUSR

Simple Summary In this review, first, the history of EUS-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) is summarized. In the following chapters controversies arising from various approaches and challenges in EUS-BD, EUS-guided gallbladder drainage (EUS-GBD) and alternatively performed procedures are discussed from different points of view on the background of the available evidence. In addition, for all topics arguments in favor and against the techniques are described and reflected. The topics include “Why do we need procedures other than ERCP?”; “Should EUS-BD and ERCP be performed by the same operator?”; rendezvous techniques, including “Should rendezvous be used first?” and “Which rendezvous route should be used?”; percutaneous transhepatic cholangiography and biliary drainage (PTBD); “Should PTBD and EUS-BD be performed by the same physician?”; “Do we need cystotomes?”; “Do we need bougies?”; “Are all EUS needles the same for EUS-BD?”; “Plastic or metal stents?”; and adverse events. Abstract In this 14th document in a series of papers entitled “Controversies in Endoscopic Ultrasound” we discuss various aspects of EUS-guided biliary drainage that are debated in the literature and in practice. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiography is still the reference technique for therapeutic biliary access, but EUS-guided techniques for biliary access and drainage have developed into safe and highly effective alternative options. However, EUS-guided biliary drainage techniques are technically demanding procedures for which few training models are currently available. Different access routes require modifications to the basic technique and specific instruments. In experienced hands, percutaneous transhepatic cholangiodrainage is also a good alternative. Therefore, in this paper, we compare arguments for different options of biliary drainage and different technical modifications.