Jung Hyun Jo1, Moon Jae Chung2, Dai Hoon Han3, Jeong Youp Park1, Seungmin Bang1, Seung Woo Park1, Si Young Song1, Jae Bock Chung1. 1. Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, 50 Yonsei-ro, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul, 120-752, Korea. 2. Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, 50 Yonsei-ro, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul, 120-752, Korea. MJCHUNG@yuhs.ac. 3. Department of Surgery, Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Abstract
Operative treatment combined with PBD has been established as a safe management strategy for Klatskin tumors. However, controversy exists regarding the preferred technique for PBD among percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD), endoscopic biliary stenting (EBS), and endoscopic nasobiliary drainage (ENBD). This study aimed to identify the best technique for preoperative biliary drainage (PBD) in Klatskin tumor patients. METHODS: This study evaluated 98 Klatskin tumor patients who underwent PBD prior to operation with a curative aim between 2005 and 2012. The PTBD, EBS, and ENBD groups included 43, 42, and 13 patients, respectively. Baseline characteristics, technical success rate, complications of PBD, and surgical outcomes were compared. RESULTS: Initial technical success rates (97.3 %, PTBD; 90.2 %, endoscopic methods, including EBS and ENBD) and mean duration until biliary decompression (31.0, PTBD; 28.7, EBS; 35.8 days, ENBD) were not significantly different between the groups. Total frequency of complications did not significantly differ between the EBS group (42.9 %) and the PTBD (27.9 %, p = 0.149) and ENBD (15.4 %, p = 0.072) groups. The ENBD group showed a significantly higher rate of conversion to other methods (76.9 %) than the PTBD (4.7 %, p < 0.0001) and EBS (35.7 %, p = 0.009) groups. CONCLUSIONS: PTBD, EBS, and ENBD showed comparable results regarding initial technical success rates, complication rates, and surgical outcomes. As Klatskin tumor patients must undergo PBD prior to 3 weeks before surgery, PTBD and ENBD are uncomfortable and disadvantageous in terms of compliance. EBS was the most suitable method for initial PBD in terms of compliance among Klatskin tumor patients.
Operative treatment combined with PBD has been established as a safe management strategy for Klatskin tumors. However, controversy exists regarding the preferred technique for PBD among percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD), endoscopic biliary stenting (EBS), and endoscopic nasobiliary drainage (ENBD). This study aimed to identify the best technique for preoperative biliary drainage (PBD) in Klatskin tumorpatients. METHODS: This study evaluated 98 Klatskin tumorpatients who underwent PBD prior to operation with a curative aim between 2005 and 2012. The PTBD, EBS, and ENBD groups included 43, 42, and 13 patients, respectively. Baseline characteristics, technical success rate, complications of PBD, and surgical outcomes were compared. RESULTS: Initial technical success rates (97.3 %, PTBD; 90.2 %, endoscopic methods, including EBS and ENBD) and mean duration until biliary decompression (31.0, PTBD; 28.7, EBS; 35.8 days, ENBD) were not significantly different between the groups. Total frequency of complications did not significantly differ between the EBS group (42.9 %) and the PTBD (27.9 %, p = 0.149) and ENBD (15.4 %, p = 0.072) groups. The ENBD group showed a significantly higher rate of conversion to other methods (76.9 %) than the PTBD (4.7 %, p < 0.0001) and EBS (35.7 %, p = 0.009) groups. CONCLUSIONS:PTBD, EBS, and ENBD showed comparable results regarding initial technical success rates, complication rates, and surgical outcomes. As Klatskin tumorpatients must undergo PBD prior to 3 weeks before surgery, PTBD and ENBD are uncomfortable and disadvantageous in terms of compliance. EBS was the most suitable method for initial PBD in terms of compliance among Klatskin tumorpatients.
Authors: W R Jarnagin; Y Fong; R P DeMatteo; M Gonen; E C Burke; J Bodniewicz BS; M Youssef BA; D Klimstra; L H Blumgart Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2001-10 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Juan Valle; Harpreet Wasan; Daniel H Palmer; David Cunningham; Alan Anthoney; Anthony Maraveyas; Srinivasan Madhusudan; Tim Iveson; Sharon Hughes; Stephen P Pereira; Michael Roughton; John Bridgewater Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2010-04-08 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Vivian E Ekkelenkamp; Robert A de Man; Frank Ter Borg; Pieter C J Ter Borg; Marco J Bruno; Marcel J M Groenen; Bettina E Hansen; Antonie J P van Tilburg; Erik A J Rauws; Arjun D Koch Journal: Endoscopy Date: 2015-01-15 Impact factor: 10.093
Authors: David J Rea; Manuel Munoz-Juarez; Michael B Farnell; John H Donohue; Florencia G Que; Brian Crownhart; Dirk Larson; David M Nagorney Journal: Arch Surg Date: 2004-05
Authors: E J Williams; S Taylor; P Fairclough; A Hamlyn; R F Logan; D Martin; S A Riley; P Veitch; M L Wilkinson; P R Williamson; M Lombard Journal: Endoscopy Date: 2007-09 Impact factor: 10.093
Authors: Thomas Walter; Chia S Ho; Anne M Horgan; Andrew Warkentin; Steve Gallinger; Paul D Greig; Paul Kortan; Jennifer J Knox Journal: J Vasc Interv Radiol Date: 2012-11-22 Impact factor: 3.464
Authors: Alessandro Rizzo; Angela Dalia Ricci; Giorgio Frega; Andrea Palloni; Stefania DE Lorenzo; Francesca Abbati; Veronica Mollica; Simona Tavolari; Mariacristina DI Marco; Giovanni Brandi Journal: In Vivo Date: 2020 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 2.155
Authors: Q Lina Hu; Jason B Liu; Ryan J Ellis; Jessica Y Liu; Anthony D Yang; Michael I D'Angelica; Clifford Y Ko; Ryan P Merkow Journal: HPB (Oxford) Date: 2019-07-23 Impact factor: 3.647
Authors: F Rassam; E Roos; K P van Lienden; J E van Hooft; H J Klümpen; G van Tienhoven; R J Bennink; M R Engelbrecht; A Schoorlemmer; U H W Beuers; J Verheij; M G Besselink; O R Busch; T M van Gulik Journal: Langenbecks Arch Surg Date: 2018-01-19 Impact factor: 3.445
Authors: Umberto Cillo; Constantino Fondevila; Matteo Donadon; Enrico Gringeri; Federico Mocchegiani; Hans J Schlitt; Jan N M Ijzermans; Marco Vivarelli; Krzysztof Zieniewicz; Steven W M Olde Damink; Bas Groot Koerkamp Journal: Liver Int Date: 2019-05 Impact factor: 5.828
Authors: Daniele Dondossola; Michele Ghidini; Francesco Grossi; Giorgio Rossi; Diego Foschi Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2020-07-07 Impact factor: 5.742