RESUMO

Biliary drainage for Perihilar Cholangiocarcinoma (PCCA) can be performed either by endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography or Percutaneous Transhepatic Biliary Drainage (PTBD). To date there is no consensus about which method is preferred. Taking that into account, the aim of this study is to compare Endoscopic Biliary Drainage (EBD) versus percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage in patients with perihilar cholangiocarcinoma through a systematic review and metanalysis. A comprehensive search of multiple electronic databases was performed. Evaluated outcomes included technical success, clinical success, post drainage complications (cholangitis, pancreatitis, bleeding, and major complications), crossover, hospital length stay, and seeding metastases. Data extracted from the studies were used to calculate Mean Differences (MD). Seventeen studies were included, with a total of 2284 patients (EBD = 1239, PTBD = 1045). Considering resectable PCCA, the PTBD group demonstrated lower rates of crossover (RD = 0.29; 95% CI 0.07‒0.51; p = 0.009 I² = 90%), post-drainage complications (RD = 0.20; 95% CI 0.06‒0.33; p < 0.0001; I² = 78%), and post-drainage pancreatitis (RD = 0.10; 95% CI 0.05‒0.16; p < 0.0001; I² = 64%). The EBD group presented reduced length of hospital stay (RD = -2.89; 95% CI -3.35 ‒ -2,43; p < 0.00001; I² = 42%). Considering palliative PCCA, the PTBD group demonstrated a higher clinical success (RD = -0.19; 95% CI -0.27 ‒ -0.11; p < 0.00001; I² = 0%) and less post-drainage cholangitis (RD = 0.08; 95% CI 0.01‒0.15; p = 0.02; I² = 48%) when compared to the EBD group. There was no statistical difference between the groups regarding: technical success, post-drainage bleeding, major post-drainage complications, and seeding metastases.

Assuntos

RESUMO

Abstract Biliary drainage for Perihilar Cholangiocarcinoma (PCCA) can be performed either by endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography or Percutaneous Transhepatic Biliary Drainage (PTBD). To date there is no consensus about which method is preferred. Taking that into account, the aim of this study is to compare Endoscopic Biliary Drainage (EBD) versus percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage in patients with perihilar cholangiocarcinoma through a systematic review and metanalysis. A comprehensive search of multiple electronic databases was performed. Evaluated outcomes included technical success, clinical success, post drainage complications (cholangitis, pancreatitis, bleeding, and major complications), crossover, hospital length stay, and seeding metastases. Data extracted from the studies were used to calculate Mean Differences (MD). Seventeen studies were included, with a total of 2284 patients (EBD = 1239, PTBD = 1045). Considering resectable PCCA, the PTBD group demonstrated lower rates of crossover (RD = 0.29; 95% CI 0.07-0.51; p = 0.009 I2 = 90%), post-drainage complications (RD = 0.20; 95% CI 0.06-0.33; p < 0.0001; I2 = 78%), and post-drainage pancreatitis (RD = 0.10; 95% CI 0.05-0.16; p < 0.0001; I2 = 64%). The EBD group presented reduced length of hospital stay (RD = -2.89; 95% CI -3.35 - -2,43; p < 0.00001; I2 = 42%). Considering palliative PCCA, the PTBD group demonstrated a higher clinical success (RD = -0.19; 95% CI -0.27 - -0.11; p < 0.00001; I2 = 0%) and less post-drainage cholangitis (RD = 0.08; 95% CI 0.01-0.15; p = 0.02; I2 = 48%) when compared to the EBD group. There was no statistical difference between the groups regarding: technical success, post-drainage bleeding, major post-drainage complications, and seeding metastases.

RESUMO

Background: The relationship between obesity with common bile duct stone (CBDS) is close and increases after a Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB). Due to the anatomical modification, direct endoscopic access is not always possible. For this reason, image-guided surgery (IGS) by percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) of the common bile duct (CBD) could be a first-line approach for the treatment of post-RYGB choledocholithiasis. The aim of this study was to analyze the feasibility and safety of CBDS treatment after RYGB with IGS. Materials and Methods: We present a descriptive retrospective observational multicentric study on the treatment of choledocholithiasis in patients operated on for RYGB using IGS through a minimally invasive approach by PTBD. The diagnosis of CBDS was made according to the symptoms of the patients, supported by blood tests, and medical images. Treatment was planned in two stages: in the first step, a PTBD was performed, and in the second step the choledocholithiasis was removed. Results: Of a total of 1403 post-RYGB patients, 21 presented choledocholithiasis. Of these, n = 18 were included. Symptoms were reported in n = 15 (8 cholestatic jaundice, 7 cholangitis), whereas n = 3 were asymptomatic. Percutaneous treatment was performed in all these patients, treated with a balloon and stone basket. A hyperamylasemia without pancreatitis was observed in 3 patients. No complications or deaths associated with the procedure were reported. The average hospital stay was 8.6 days. Conclusion: IGS is an interesting option for the treatment CBDS after RYGB. For these patients, PTBD is feasible and safe.

Assuntos

RESUMO

PURPOSE: To report a novel modified occlusion balloon technique to treat biliary leaks. METHODS: A 22-year-old female patient underwent liver transplantation with biliary-enteric anastomosis. She developed thrombosis of the common hepatic artery and extensive ischemia in the left hepatic lobe. Resection of segments II and III was performed and a biliary-cutaneous leak originating at the resection plane was identified in the early postoperative period. Initial treatment with percutaneous transhepatic drainage was unsuccessful. Therefore, an angioplasty balloon was coaxially inserted within the biliary drain and positioned close to the leak. RESULTS: The fistula output abruptly decreased after the procedure and stopped on the 7th day. At the 3-week follow-up, cholangiography revealed complete resolution of the leakage. CONCLUSION: This novel modified occlusion balloon technique was effective and safe. However, greater experience and more cases are necessary to validate the technique.

Assuntos