Search

Background: Gastrojejunostomy (GJJ) is the most commonly used palliative treatment modality for malignant gastric outlet obstruction. Recently, stent placement has been introduced as an alternative treatment. We reviewed the available literature on stent placement and GJJ for gastric outlet obstruction, with regard to medical effects and costs. Methods: A systematic review of the literature was performed by searching PubMed for the period January 1996 and January 2006. A total of 44 publications on GJJ and stents was identified and reported results on medical effects and costs were pooled and evaluated. Results from randomized and comparative studies were used for calculating odds ratios (OR) to compare differences between the two treatment modalities. Results: In 2 randomized trials, stent placement was compared with GJJ (with 27 and 18 patients in each trial). In 6 comparative studies, stent placement was compared with GJJ. Thirty-six series evaluated either stent placement or GJJ. A total of 1046 patient received a duodenal stent and 297 patients underwent GJJ. No differences between stent placement and gastrojejunostomy were found in technical success (96% vs. 100%), early and late major complications 7% vs. 6% and 18% vs. 17%, respectively) and persisting symptoms (8% vs. 9%). Initial clinical success was higher after stent placement (89% vs. 72%). Minor complications were less frequently seen after stent placement in the patient series (9% vs. 33%), however the pooled analysis showed no differences (OR: 0.75, p = 0.8). Recurrent obstructive symptoms were more common after stent placement (18% vs. 1%). Hospital stay was prolonged after GJJ compared to stent placement (13 days vs. 7 days). The mean survival was 105 days after stent placement and 164 days after GJJ. Conclusion: These results suggest that stent placement may be associated with more favorable results in patients with a relatively short life expectancy, while GJJ is preferable in patients with a more prolonged prognosis. The paucity of evid ence from large randomized trials may however have influenced the results and therefore a trial of sufficient size is needed to determine which palliative treatment modality is optimal in (sub)groups of patients with malignant gastric outlet obstruction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Liver surgery in perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (PHC) is associated with high postoperative morbidity because the tumor typically causes biliary obstruction. Preoperative biliary drainage is used to create a safer environment prior to liver surgery, but biliary drainage may be harmful when severe drainage-related complications deteriorate the patients' condition or increase the risk of postoperative morbidity. Biliary drainage can cause cholangitis/cholecystitis, pancreatitis, hemorrhage, portal vein thrombosis, bowel wall perforation, or dehydration. Two methods of preoperative biliary drainage are mostly applied: endoscopic biliary drainage, which is currently used in most regional centers before referring patients for surgical treatment, and percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage. Both methods are associated with severe drainage-related complications, but two small retrospective series found a lower incidence in the number of preoperative complications after percutaneous drainage compared to endoscopic drainage (18-25% versus 38-60%, respectively). The present study randomizes patients with potentially resectable PHC and biliary obstruction between preoperative endoscopic or percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage.Methods/design: The study is a multi-center trial with an "all-comers" design, randomizing patients between endoscopic or percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage. All patients selected to potentially undergo a major liver resection for presumed PHC are eligible for inclusion in the study provided that the biliary system in the future liver remnant is obstructed (even if they underwent previous inadequate endoscopic drainage). Primary outcome measure is the total number of severe preoperative complications between randomization and exploratory laparotomy. The study is designed to detect superiority of percutaneous drainage: a provisional sample size of 106 patients is required to detect a relative decrease of 50% in the number of severe preoperative complications (alpha = 0.95; beta = 0.8). Interim analysis after inclusion of 53 patients (50%) will provide the definitive sample size. Secondary outcome measures encompass the success of biliary drainage, quality of life, and postoperative morbidity and mortality.Discussion: The DRAINAGE trial is designed to identify a difference in the number of severe drainage-related complications after endoscopic and percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage in patients selected to undergo a major liver resection for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma.Trial Registration: Netherlands Trial Register [ NTR4243 , 11 October 2013]. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]