ArticleBMC surgery2026
Comparative outcomes of hepaticojejunostomy versus ERCP-Guided metal stenting for malignant distal biliary obstruction: a single-center retrospective study.
Article in BMC surgery, 2026. 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMalignant distal biliary obstruction (MDBO) is commonly managed by internal drainage with ERCP-guided self-expandable metal stents (ERCP-SEMS) or surgical hepaticojejunostomy (HJ), yet contemporary SEMS-only, patient-centered comparisons focusing on time to recurrent jaundice are scarce.
objectiveTo compare HJ versus ERCP-SEMS in MDBO, with a primary focus on time to recurrent jaundice.
methodsWe conducted a single-center retrospective cohort of consecutive MDBO patients undergoing palliative biliary decompression (February 2013–August 2021). Groups were defined by the first modality achieving effective internal drainage. The primary endpoint was time to recurrent jaundice (interval to repeat biliary intervention). Secondary endpoints were length of stay (LOS), 30-day complications, and overall survival (OS).
resultsAmong 171 patients (HJ, n = 107; ERCP-SEMS, n = 64) with broadly comparable baselines, ERCP-SEMS yielded a shorter LOS (6.67 ± 4.02 vs. 9.56 ± 5.38 days; P < 0.001). Thirty-day complication rates were similar (21.9% vs. 21.5%), but profiles differed (more post-ERCP pancreatitis vs. more biliary fistula after HJ). Median follow-up was 12.8 months; OS did not differ (11.6 vs. 13.3 months; P = 0.978). Time to recurrent jaundice was significantly longer after HJ than ERCP-SEMS (events 3/107 vs. 8/64; P = 0.007).
conclusionsBoth strategies effectively relieve jaundice with comparable survival. ERCP-SEMS offers superior short-term efficiency (shorter hospitalization), whereas HJ provides mid-term durability (prolonged jaundice-free interval). Management should individualize this trade-off within a multidisciplinary framework.
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.