Efficacy and safety of preoperative biliary drainage in patients with Hilar Cholangiocarcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.037 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".