ArticleTherapeutic advances in gastrointestinal endoscopy
Endoscopic management of biliary leakage after hepatectomy and analysis of its influencing factors.
Article in Therapeutic advances in gastrointestinal endoscopy. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Bile leakage following hepatectomy is a challenging issue that poses difficulties for hepatobiliary surgeons. Endoscopic treatment is the primary method for managing this complication, although its effectiveness is still uncertain. Objectives: The aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness and risk factors of endoscopic treatment for bile leakage after hepatectomy. Design: A retrospective cohort study. Methods: A retrospective study was performed on 15 patients who experienced bile leakage following hepatectomy and were successfully treated with endoscopic retrograde cholangiography (ERCP). The primary focus was to examine how factors like the site of bile leakage, the position of biliary drainage, and late-set leakage impact early clinical success (ECS). Results: Out of the 15 cases, 10 successfully achieved ECS through endoscopic treatment. The highest success rate (80.0%, 4 out of 5) was seen when biliary drainage was performed by bridging, while drainage placed near the leakage site had a success rate of 75.0% (6 out of 8). The best outcomes occurred when bile leakage was located in the tertiary or higher branch bile ducts, with an 83.3% success rate (5 out of 6). Additionally, early-onset leakage had a higher ECS success rate compared to late-onset bile leakage (75.0% (6/8) vs 57.1% (4/7)). Among the 15 cases, 12 involved extensive liver resections of more than two segments, 14 included segments 7 or 8, 11 had received preoperative adjuvant therapy, and 9 had undergone transarterial chemoembolization (TACE). In cases with late-onset bile leakage, 6 out of 7 (85.7%) had undergone TACE. Bile leakage caused by TACE was more likely to be accompanied by bile duct-bronchial fistula, and the healing process took significantly longer. Conclusion: Endoscopic management of bile leakage following liver resection is both safe and effective, making it a preferred first-line treatment. Improved results can be obtained by placing a stent to bridge and drain near the leakage site. Extensive liver resection, resection involving segments 7 or 8 of the liver, and preoperative adjuvant therapies are significant risk factors for bile leakage, particularly TACE, which may lead to bile duct-bronchial fistulas and extended recovery periods.
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.