Search

The controversy over whether and how to perform preoperative biliary drainage (PBD) in patients with hilar cholangiocarcinoma (HCA) remains unsettled. Arguments against PBD before pancreatoduodenectomy have recently been gaining momentum. However, the complication-related mortality rate is as high as 10% for patients with HCA who have undergone major liver resection, and liver failure is a major cause of postoperative death. This suggests the need for PBD to treat jaundice in HCA patients scheduled for major surgical resection of the liver and that major surgery should be performed only after the recovery of hepatic function. No definite criteria or guidelines outlining indications for PBD are currently available. In patients with HCA, PBD may be performed by either percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) or endoscopic biliary drainage (EBD). No consensus, however, has been reached regarding which drainage method is more appropriate. No reported study has compared the effectiveness of PTBD, endoscopic biliary stenting (EBS), and endoscopic nasobiliary drainage (ENBD) in patients with HCA. This review summarizes the results of our study comparing the three methods and outlines the preoperative endoscopic management of segmental cholangitis (SC) in HCA patients undergoing PBD.

Background: Controversy exists over the preferred technique of preoperative biliary drainage (PBD) in patients with hilar cholangiocarcinoma (HCA). The goal of this retrospective study was to identify the preferred technique of PBD for HCA. Methods: A total of 128 consecutive patients with HCA diagnosed between September 1999 and December 2009 who underwent PBD were included in this study. The study compared outcomes of endoscopic nasobiliary drainage (ENBD), endoscopic biliary stenting (EBS), and percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) in patients with HCA. Results: There were no significant differences in preoperative laboratory data, rates of major hepatectomy, or decompression periods among the 3 groups. Complications were significantly more frequent in the EBS group compared with either the ENBD or PTBD group ( p < 0.05). Drainage tube occlusion with cholangitis was significantly more common in the EBS group compared with either the ENBD or PTBD group ( p < 0.0001). Patients in the PTBD group experienced serious complications including vascular injury (8%) and cancer dissemination (4%). Patients in the ENBD and EBS groups had mild post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis (5%). Conversion procedures were significantly more common in the EBS group compared with the ENBD and PTBD groups ( p < 0.05). There was no significant difference in postsurgical morbidity or mortality among the 3 groups. Conclusions: Drainage tube occlusion with cholangitis was a frequent complication associated with EBS. PTBD was associated with serious complications such as vascular injury and cancer dissemination. ENBD was found to be the most suitable method for initial PBD management in patients with HCA. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article offers the authors' insights on their single-center observational study which examines the efficacy of percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD), endoscopic biliary stenting (EBS), and nasobiliary drainage (ENBD) in patients with perihilar bile duct cancer. They note that ENBD is considered the most suitable preoperative biliary drainage method based on decompression, complications and postsurgical morbidity. They suggest that EBS must be avoided and PTB should be limited.