Endoscopic Versus Percutaneous Preoperative Biliary Drainage in Patients With Klatskin Tumor Undergoing Curative Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Short-Term and Long-Term Outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aims. To compare short-term and long-term outcomes of preoperative endoscopic biliary drainage (EBD) and percutaneous biliary drainage (PBD) in patients with Klatskin tumor undergoing curative surgery. Methods. We conducted a search of electronic information sources to identify all studies comparing EBD and PBD in patients with Klatskin tumor undergoing curative surgery. We used the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale to assess the risk of bias observational studies. Random-effects or fixed-effects modeling was applied as appropriate to calculate pooled outcome data. Results. We identified 9 observational studies, enrolling a total of 1436 patients. The patients in the PBD group had more advanced disease than those in EBD group in terms of Bismuth-Corlette classification and tumor classification. EBD was associated with higher risks of postprocedural complications (odds ratio [OR] =2.24, P = .001), conversion to another drainage method (OR =11.16, P < .00001), cholangitis (OR = 4.58, P < .0001), and pancreatitis (OR = 8.90, P = .009) than PBD; there was no difference between the 2 methods in terms of technical success (OR = 0.79, P = .50) and tube dislocation (OR = 0.81, P = .54). Regarding the postoperative outcomes, there was no difference in terms of 30-day mortality (OR = 0.61, P = .16) and major postoperative complications (OR = 0.60, P = .06). Regarding the long-term outcomes, EBD was associated with lower risks of seeding metastasis (OR = 0.46, P = .0004) and 5-year recurrence (OR = 0.72, P = .010), and better 5-year survival (OR = 1.62, P = .001). Conclusions. EBD may be associated with higher procedure-related complications compared with PBD as a preoperative biliary drainage method in patients with Klatskin tumor undergoing curative surgery. The available evidence on long-term oncological and survival outcomes are subject to confounding by indication, and high-quality randomized controlled trials are required for definite conclusions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".