ArticleBalkan medical journal2021
Optimal Endoscopic Management of Anastomotic Strictures After Double- Biliary Reconstruction in Right Lobe Living-Donor Liver Transplantation.
Article in Balkan medical journal, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere is no consensus on the optimal drainage technique in the management of biliary anastomotic strictures occurring after right-lobe living-donor liver transplantation (RL LDLT).
aimsTo investigate whether there is a superiority between unilateral and bilateral drainage groups in terms of efficacy and safety of biliary drainage in RL LDLT patients undergoing double-biliary reconstruction. STUDY
designRetrospective Cohort Methods: Between January 2009 and August 2019, 1693 patients underwent RL LDLT. Of these, 182 patients who developed biliary anastomotic strictures out of the 306 patients who had double-biliary reconstruction, were included in the study. One hundred fifty-five patients with technical success were divided into 2 groups as unilateral (n=116) and bilateral (n=39) drainage groups. The groups were compared in terms of variable parameters such as clinical success, additional procedure, post-ERCP complication, procedures after clinical failure, hospital stay, mortality, and survival.
resultsThe clinical success was higher in the bilateral group (70% vs. 82%, P = .201). In the initial and the follow-up periods, a total of 44 (38%) patients in the unilateral group were switched to the bilateral drainage group due to the increased need for stenting. The placement of a stent successfully solved the problem only in 28% (32/117) of the patients in the unilateral group, while this rate was 44% (17/39) in the bilateral group. The median follow-up time of both groups was 42 months, and was equal. The number of stent-free follow-up patients in the unilateral drainage group was less than that in the bilateral drainage group (4 and 7, respectively).
conclusionAn active attempt should be made for bilateral drainage in patients with biliary anastomotic stricture following RL LDLT. However, for patients in whom bilateral drainage is not possible, unilateral drainage may be recommended, with the placement of a maximum number of stents following primary biliary balloon dilatation, depending on the degree of stricture.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.