Multicentre European study of preoperative biliary drainage for hilar cholangiocarcinoma
ABSTRACT BACKGROUND: Indications for preoperative biliary drainage (PBD) in the context of hepatectomy for hilar malignancies are still debated. The aim of this study was to investigate current European practice regarding biliary drainage before hepatectomy for Klatskin tumours. METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis of all patients who underwent formal or extended right or left hepatectomy for hilar cholangiocarcinoma between 1997 and 2008 at 11 European teaching hospitals, and for whom details of serum bilirubin levels at admission and at the time of surgery were available. PBD was performed at the physicians' discretion. The primary outcome was 90-day mortality. Secondary outcomes were morbidity and cause of death. The association of PBD and of preoperative serum bilirubin levels with postoperative mortality was assessed by logistic regression, in the entire population as well as separately in the right- and left-sided hepatectomy groups, and was adjusted for confounding factors. RESULTS: A total of 366 patients were enrolled; PBD was performed in 180 patients. The overall mortality rate was 10·7 per cent and was higher after right- than left-sided hepatectomy (14·7 versus 6·6 per cent; adjusted odds ratio (OR) 3·16, 95 per cent confidence interval 1·50 to 6·65; P = 0·001). PBD did not affect overall postoperative mortality, but was associated with a decreased mortality rate after right hepatectomy (adjusted OR 0·29, 0·11 to 0·77; P = 0·013) and an increased mortality rate after left hepatectomy (adjusted OR 4·06, 1·01 to 16·30; P = 0·035). A preoperative serum bilirubin level greater than 50 µmol/l was also associated with increased mortality, but only after right hepatectomy (adjusted OR 7·02, 1·73 to 28·52; P = 0·002). CONCLUSION: PBD does not affect overall mortality in jaundiced patients with hilar cholangiocarcinoma, but there may be a difference between patients undergoing right-sided versus left-sided hepatectomy. Copyright © 2012 British Journal of Surgery Society Ltd. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
SourceAvailable from: PubMed Central[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Hilar cholangiocarcinoma is the most common malignant tumor affecting the extrahepatic bile duct. Surgical treatment offers the only possibility of cure, and it requires removal of all tumoral tissues with adequate resection margins. The aims of this review are to summarize the findings and to discuss the controversies on the extent of surgical resection aiming at cure for hilar cholangiocarcinoma. The English medical literatures on hilar cholangiocarcinoma were studied to review on the relevance of adequate resection margins, routine caudate lobe resection, extent of liver resection, and combined vascular resection on perioperative and long-term survival outcomes of patients with resectable hilar cholangiocarcinoma. Complete resection of tumor represents the most important prognostic factor of long-term survival for hilar cholangiocarcinoma. The primary aim of surgery is to achieve R0 resection. When R1 resection is shown intraoperatively, further resection is recommended. Combined hepatic resection is now generally accepted as a standard procedure even for Bismuth type I/II tumors. Routine caudate lobe resection is also advocated for cure. The extent of hepatic resection remains controversial. Most surgeons recommend major hepatic resection. However, minor hepatic resection has also been advocated in most patients. The decision to carry out right- or left-sided hepatectomy is made according to the predominant site of the lesion. Portal vein resection should be considered when its involvement by tumor is suspected. The curative treatment of hilar cholangiocarcinoma remains challenging. Advances in hepatobiliary techniques have improved the perioperative and long-term survival outcomes of this tumor.International Journal of Colorectal Disease 11/2014; 30(2). DOI:10.1007/s00384-014-2063-z · 2.42 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: 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. 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. 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. Netherlands Trial Register [ NTR4243 , 11 October 2013].BMC Gastroenterology 12/2015; 15(1). DOI:10.1186/s12876-015-0251-0 · 2.11 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Palliation of jaundice improves the general health of the patient and, therefore, surgical outcomes. Because of the complexity and location of strictures, especially proximally, drainage has been accompanied by increased morbidity due to sepsis. Another concern is the provocation of an inflammatory and fibrotic reaction around the area of stent placement. Preoperative biliary drainage with self-expanding metallic stent (SEMS) insertion can be achieved via a percutaneous method or through endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. A recently published multicenter randomized Dutch study has shown increased morbidity with preoperative biliary drainage. A Cochrane meta-analysis has also shown a significantly increased complication rate with preoperative drainage. However, few of these studies have used a SEMS, which allows better biliary drainage. No randomized controlled trials have compared preoperative deployment of SEMS versus conventional plastic stents. The outcomes of biliary drainage also depend on the location of the obstruction, namely the difficulty with proximal compared to distal strictures. Pathophysiologically, palliation of jaundice will benefit all patients awaiting surgery. However, preoperative drainage often results in increased morbidity because of procedure-related sepsis. The use of SEMS may change the outcome of preoperative biliary drainage dramatically.01/2015; 48(1):8-14. DOI:10.5946/ce.2015.48.1.8