MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408361627 · doi:10.1097/js9.0000000000002324

Efficacy and safety of preoperative biliary drainage in patients with Hilar Cholangiocarcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2025· review· en· W4408361627 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Xiuwen Chen, Xueyi Wei, Liqing Yue

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Surgery · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGallbladder and Bile Duct Disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineOdds ratioCochrane LibraryMeta-analysisInternal medicineSurgeryLaparotomyGastroenterology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Preoperative biliary drainage (PBD) has been proposed as a strategy to manage the complications associated with biliary obstruction in hilar cholangiocarcinoma patients. However, the efficacy and safety of PBD in remain controversial, even in clinical guidelines. This meta-analysis aimed to provide a comprehensive evaluation of the efficacy and safety of PBD in patients with hilar cholangiocarcinoma. METHODS: PubMed, Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and registers were screened to investigate the efficacy and safety of PBD in patients with hilar cholangiocarcinoma. The search timeframe was set before December 2024. Mortality, morbidity, and postoperative infection served as the primary outcomes, while the secondary outcomes included transfusion, operative time, operative bloody loss, intraabdominal abscess, intraabdominal bleeding, leakage (bile leak or anastomotic leakage), hepatic insufficiency, renal insufficiency, second laparotomy, total hospital stay, cholangitis. Studies were evaluated for quality by Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Data were pooled as odds ratio ( OR ) or standard mean difference ( SMD ). RESULTS: Our meta-analysis of 21 studies (3059 patients) showed that PBD reduced hepatic insufficiency ( OR = 0.38, 95% CI = 0.16-0.90, P = 0.03, I 2 = 69%) but increased risks of long term follow up mortality ( OR = 1.90, 95% CI = 1.02-3.56, P = 0.04, I 2 = 0%), morbidity ( OR = 1.47, 95% CI = 1.12-1.92, P = 0.01, I 2 = 52%), postoperative infection ( OR = 2.46, 95% CI = 1.17-5.18, P = 0.02, I 2 = 69%), transfusion ( OR = 1.39, 95% CI = 1.06-1.81, P = 0.02, I 2 = 49%), leakage ( OR = 1.67, 95% CI = 1.08-2.60, P = 0.02, I 2 = 44%), cholangitis ( OR = 6.40, 95% CI = 1.75-23.48, P = 0.01, I 2 = 51%), and prolonged hospital stay ( SMD = 0.53, 95% CI = 0.06-0.99, P = 0.03, I 2 = 87%). There was no difference in overall mortality, operative time, blood loss, or other complications ( P > 0.05). Subgroup analysis showed that differences in some outcomes lost significance with higher bilirubin levels, fewer PBD cases, studies published after 2010, and strictly select PBD patients ( P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Routine PBD cannot be recommended but it tends to be a better choice in patients with average initial bilirubin above 218.75 μmol/L, portal vein embolization and malnutrition. Further multicenter randomized studies should address the potential advantages of PBD over NPBD, identify clear patient selection criteria, and determine the optimal bilirubin threshold for PBD.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.539
Threshold uncertainty score0.627

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.039
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.279 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of SurgerySame topicGallbladder and Bile Duct DisordersFrench-language works237,207