BACKGROUND/AIMS: Few studies have compared endoscopic biliary stenting and endoscopic nasobiliary drainage for preoperative biliary drainage in patients with malignant distal biliary obstruction. We aimed to evaluate their safety and efficacy in such patients awaiting pancreaticoduodenectomy. METHODOLOGY: Seventy-six of 80 patients (40 with pancreatic cancer, 26 with distal bile duct cancer, and 14 with ampullary cancer) who underwent endoscopic preoperative biliary drainage were included, and we evaluated whether endoscopic biliary stenting or endoscopic nasobiliary drainage provided a safer and more effective drainage for patients awaiting pancreaticoduodenectomy. We also determined whether the type of cancer influenced tube dysfunction. RESULTS: No significant differences in the overall rate of catheter-related complications, the rate of tube dysfunction, or the median interval from preoperative biliary drainage to the time of tube dysfunction were observed between the two groups. Tube dysfunction was observed significantly more frequently in patients with pancreatic cancer than in those with distal bile duct or ampullary cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Both endoscopic biliary stenting and endoscopic nasobiliary drainage provided safe and effective drainage for patients awaiting pancreaticoduodenectomy. Tube dysfunction was associated with preoperative biliary drainage significantly earlier in patients with pancreatic cancer than in those with distal bile duct cancer or ampullary cancer.
BACKGROUND/AIMS: Few studies have compared endoscopic biliary stenting and endoscopic nasobiliary drainage for preoperative biliary drainage in patients with malignant distal biliary obstruction. We aimed to evaluate their safety and efficacy in such patients awaiting pancreaticoduodenectomy. METHODOLOGY: Seventy-six of 80 patients (40 with pancreatic cancer, 26 with distal bile duct cancer, and 14 with ampullary cancer) who underwent endoscopic preoperative biliary drainage were included, and we evaluated whether endoscopic biliary stenting or endoscopic nasobiliary drainage provided a safer and more effective drainage for patients awaiting pancreaticoduodenectomy. We also determined whether the type of cancer influenced tube dysfunction. RESULTS: No significant differences in the overall rate of catheter-related complications, the rate of tube dysfunction, or the median interval from preoperative biliary drainage to the time of tube dysfunction were observed between the two groups. Tube dysfunction was observed significantly more frequently in patients with pancreatic cancer than in those with distal bile duct or ampullary cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Both endoscopic biliary stenting and endoscopic nasobiliary drainage provided safe and effective drainage for patients awaiting pancreaticoduodenectomy. Tube dysfunction was associated with preoperative biliary drainage significantly earlier in patients with pancreatic cancer than in those with distal bile duct cancer or ampullary cancer.
Authors: Min Jae Yang; Jae Chul Hwang; Miyeon Lee; Choong-Kyun Noh; Soon Sun Kim; Byung Moo Yoo; Jin Hong Kim Journal: Gastroenterol Res Pract Date: 2016-07-04 Impact factor: 2.260