4.6 Article

Optimal biliary drainage for inoperable Klatskin's tumor based on Bismuth type

Journal

WORLD JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY
Volume 13, Issue 29, Pages 3948-3955

Publisher

BAISHIDENG PUBLISHING GROUP INC
DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v13.i29.3948

Keywords

Klatskin's tumor; palliation; drainage; bile ducts; intervention

Ask authors/readers for more resources

AIM: To investigate differences in the effects of biliary drainage procedures in patients with inoperable Klatskin's tumor based on Bismuth type, considering endoscopic retrograde biliary drainage (ERBD), external percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (EPTBD) and internal biliary stenting via the PTBD tract (IPTBD). METHODS: The initial success rate, cumulative patency rate, and complication rate were compared retrospectively, according to the Bismuth type and ERBD, EPTBD, and IPTBD. Patency was defined as the duration for adequate initial bile drainage or to the point of the patient's death associated with inadequate drainage. RESULTS: One hundred thirty-four patients (93 men, 41 women; 21 Bismuth type II, 47 III, 66 IV; 34 ERBD, 66 EPTBD, 34 IPTBD) were recruited. There were no differences in demographics among the groups. Adequate initial relief of jaundice was achieved in 91% of patients without a significant difference in the results among different procedures or Bismuth types. The cumulative patency rates for ERBD and IPTBD were better than those for EPTBD with Bismuth type M. IPTBD provided an excellent response for Bismuth type TV. However, there was no difference in the patency rate among drainage procedures for Bismuth type II. Procedure-related cholangitis occurred less frequently with EPTBD than with ERBD and IPTBD. CONCLUSION: ERBD is recommended as the first-line drainage procedure for the palliation of jaundice in patients with inoperable Klatskin's tumor of Bismuth type II or III, but IPTBD is the best option for Bismuth type IV. (c) 2007 WJG. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available