What is appropriate procedure for preoperative biliary drainage in patients with obstructive jaundice awaiting pancreaticoduodenectomy? Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2011;21:344-348. [PMID: 22002271 DOI: 10.1097/sle.0b013e3182318d2f]

Transpancreatic precut sphincterotomy: Can nonexperts match the outcomes of experts?

BACKGROUND

Nonexpert endoscopists cannot achieve high-quality performance during difficult biliary cannulation, representing a significant challenge; precutting is an effective approach for managing these cases. Transpancreatic biliary sphincterotomy (TPBS) is considered more effective than needle-knife precutting owing to its wire-guided technique, which may be suitable for nonexpert endoscopists; however, comparisons between nonexpert and expert endoscopists performing TPBS are not well documented.

METHODS

Consecutive patients who underwent TPBS between January 2010 and April 2024 were evaluated. Rates of successful biliary duct cannulation, time to TPBS and bile duct cannulation, and adverse events were compared between both groups. Logistic regression analysis was conducted to identify factors associated with successful bile duct cannulation using TBPS.

RESULTS

The study included 140 patients (77 and 63 in the nonexpert and expert groups, respectively). The rates of successful biliary cannulation and overall adverse events (including pancreatitis, 9.1% vs. 9.5%) were 88.3% and 93.7% (p = .38) and 15.6% and 9.5% (p = .32) in the nonexpert and expert groups, respectively. Multivariate analysis revealed that early TPBS (<22 min) was a significant predictive factor for successful bile duct cannulation.

CONCLUSIONS

TBPS may be an effective technique for nonexpert endoscopists; additionally, early TPBS is a significant predictive factor for successful bile duct cannulation.

The effect of biliary stents implanted before pancreaticoduodenectomy in periampullary tumors on postoperative results: a retrospective analysis of 106 consecutive cases at a single medical center

PURPOSE

The present study evaluated the potential effects of biliary drainage before pancreaticoduodenectomy on postoperative outcomes and presented the details of a surgeon's 6 years of experience.

METHODS

All consecutive pancreatoduodenectomies performed from 2015 to 2021 were retrospectively analyzed. The study population was divided into two groups: the stented group (Group I) and the nonstented group (Group II). Patient demographic data and clinical characteristics were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

This study comprised 106 individuals who underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy for periampullary tumors. The median age of the patients was 64.41 ± 11.67 years, and 65 (61.3%) were males. Sixty-seven patients (63.2%) received biliary drains (stented group), and 39 (36.8%) patients did not (nonstented group). Total bilirubin values (6.39 mg/dl) were higher in the nonstented patient group than in the stented group. The rate of total complications was significantly higher in the stented group than in the nonstented group [please check this carefully] (p < 0.05). The length of stay, operation time and pancreatic fistula were found to be higher in the stented group than in the nonstented group.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the total bilirubin value was higher in the nonstented patient group than in the stented group, preoperative biliary drainage increased postoperative complication rates, operation time, and hospital stay. An advanced age and the presence of stents were independent risk factors influencing morbidity development according to the multivariate analysis.

Comparison of Biliary Drainage Techniques for Malignant Biliary Obstruction: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage, and endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided biliary drainage are all established techniques for drainage of malignant biliary obstruction. This network meta-analysis (NMA) was aimed at comparing all 3 modalities to each other.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Multiple databases were searched from inception to October 2019 to identify relevant studies. All the patients were eligible to receive any one of the 3 interventions. Data extraction and risk of bias assessment was performed using standardized tools. Outcomes of interest were technical success, clinical success, adverse events, and reintervention. Direct meta-analyses were performed using the random-effects model. NMA was conducted using a multivariate, consistency model with random-effects meta-regression. The GRADE approach was followed to rate the certainty of evidence.

RESULTS

The final analysis included 17 studies with 1566 patients. Direct meta-analysis suggested that EUS-guided biliary drainage had a lower reintervention rate than ERCP. NMA did not show statistically significant differences to favor any one intervention with certainty across all the outcomes. The overall certainty of evidence was found to be low to very low for all the outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

The available evidence did not favor any intervention for drainage of malignant biliary obstruction across all the outcomes assessed. ERCP with or without EUS should be considered first to allow simultaneous tissue acquisition and biliary drainage.

Impact of Percutaneous Transhepatic Biliary Drainage on Clinical Outcomes of Patients with Malignant Obstructive Jaundice Undergoing Laparoscopic Pancreaticoduodenectomy

Preoperative biliary drainage may increase the morbidity and mortality of pancreaticoduodenectomy. Studies on percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) before laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD), however, are scarce. The aim of this study was to examine the impact of PTBD on clinical outcomes of patients with malignant obstructive jaundice undergoing LPD. Clinical data of 172 patients who had malignant obstructive jaundice and underwent LPD from 2014 to 2017 in our hospital were retrospectively analyzed. Demographics, catheter-related complications, postoperative complications, and oncological outcomes were collected and analyzed. Propensity score matching was performed to minimize selection bias associated with the comparison of data between patients who underwent PTBD and then LPD (PTBD group), and those given LPD alone (LPD group). The results showed that, in the PTBD group relative to the LPD group, the operating time was significantly shortened (250.28±69.95 vs. 278.58±86.51 min, P=0.0196), the intraoperative blood loss was markedly reduced (271.96±403.47 vs. 429.72±482.47 mL, P=0.022), and overall rates of complications (16.33% vs. 36.49%, P=0.0025) including postoperative haemorrhage (2.04% vs. 12.16%, P=0.0072) and delayed gastric emptying (4.08% vs. 13.51%, P=0.0251) were greatly decreased. The propensity score-matched analysis, with 48 patients enrolled in each group, revealed no statistically significant differences in operating duration (262.71±68.64 vs. 280.25±83.52 min, P=0.264), intraoperative blood loss (290.21±407.71 vs. 373.75±422.33 mL, P=0.327) and delayed gastric emptying (4.17% vs. 12.50%, P=0.1396). PTBD group had lower incidences in overall complications (22.92% vs. 39.58%, P=0.0481) and postoperative haemorrhage (2.08% vs. 12.50%, P=0.0497) than LPD group. In conclusion, patients with malignant obstructive jaundice may benefit from PTBD procedure before LPD in terms of perioperative outcomes.

Effectiveness and risk of biliary drainage prior to pancreatoduodenectomy: review of current status

Preoperative biliary drainage (PBD) prior to pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) has gained popularity as bridge management to resolve jaundice, but its role is being challenged as it is thought to increase morbidity. To clarify the current recommendations for PBD prior to PD, we reviewed the literature, including all relevant articles published in English up until December, 2015. There is increasing evidence that PBD causes bile infection, which is related to the morbidity of infectious complications. Results of transhepatic drainage are poorer than those of endoscopic stenting, especially in an oncologic setting, although it is still unclear whether metallic stents are superior to nasobiliary drainage. PBD should be avoided whenever possible and performed only in selected cases, such as the emergency setting, an inevitable long delay (>4 weeks) before PD, and jaundice-related anorexia. Seemingly, transhepatic drainage should be reserved for refractory cases if endoscopic drainage is not possible. Further studies comparing endoscopic drainage techniques, such as metallic stents and nasobiliary drainage, are required to assess the most effective technique of PBD. Bile infection should be prevented by adequate antibiotic prophylaxis and treated even in the absence of symptoms, and bile status should be assessed systematically.

Percutaneous biliary drainage is oncologically inferior to endoscopic drainage: a propensity score matching analysis in resectable distal cholangiocarcinoma

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to evaluate whether percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) increases the incidence of seeding metastasis and shortens postoperative survival compared with endoscopic biliary drainage (EBD).

METHODS

A total of 376 patients with distal cholangiocarcinoma who underwent pancreatoduodenectomy following either PTBD (n = 189) or EBD (n = 187) at 30 hospitals between 2001 and 2010 were retrospectively reviewed. Seeding metastasis was defined as peritoneal/pleural dissemination and PTBD sinus tract recurrence. Univariate and multivariate analyses followed by propensity score matching analysis were performed to adjust the data for the baseline characteristics between the two groups.

RESULTS

The overall survival of the PTBD group was significantly shorter than that of the EBD group (34.2 % vs 48.8 % at 5 years; P = 0.003); multivariate analysis showed that the type of biliary drainage was an independent predictor of survival (P = 0.036) and seeding metastasis (P = 0.001). After two new cohorts with 82 patients each has been generated after 1:1 propensity score matching, the overall survival rate in the PTBD group was significantly less than that in the EBD group (34.7 % vs 52.5 % at 5 years, P = 0.017). The estimated recurrence rate of seeding metastasis was significantly higher in the PTBD group than in the EBD group (30.7 % vs 10.7 % at 5 years, P = 0.006), whereas the recurrence rates at other sites were similar between the two groups (P = 0.579).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with EBD, PTBD increases the incidence of seeding metastasis after resection for distal cholangiocarcinoma and shortens postoperative survival.

Current status of preoperative drainage for distal biliary obstruction

Preoperative biliary drainage (PBD) was developed to improve obstructive jaundice, which affects a number of organs and physiological mechanisms in patients waiting for surgery. However, its role in patients who will undergo pancreaticoduodenectomy for biliary obstruction remains controversial. This article aims to review the current status of the use of preoperative drainage for distal biliary obstruction. Relevant articles published from 1980 to 2015 were identified by searching MEDLINE and PubMed using the keywords “PBD”, “pancreaticoduodenectomy”, and “obstructive jaundice”. Additional papers were identified by a manual search of the references from key articles. Current studies have demonstrated that PBD should not be routinely performed because of the postoperative complications. PBD should only be considered in carefully selected patients, particularly in cases where surgery had to be delayed. PBD may be needed in patients with severe jaundice, concomitant cholangitis, or severe malnutrition. The optimal method of biliary drainage has yet to be confirmed. PBD should be performed by endoscopic routes rather than by percutaneous routes to avoid metastatic tumor seeding. Endoscopic stenting or nasobiliary drainage can be selected. Although more expensive, the use of metallic stents remains a viable option to achieve effective drainage without cholangitis and reintervention.

The effects of different preoperative biliary drainage methods on complications following pancreaticoduodenectomy

The objective of this study was to investigate the effects of different preoperative biliary drainage (PBD) methods on complications in jaundiced patients following pancreaticoduodenectomy. We retrospectively analyzed 270 extrahepatic bile duct cancer patients who underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy. A total of 170 patients without PBD treatment were defined as the non-PBD group. According to different PBD methods, 45, 18, and 37 patients were classified into the percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD), endoscopic nasobiliary drainage (ENBD), and endoscopic retrograde biliary stent (ERBS) groups, respectively. Clinical characteristics and complications were compared among the 4 groups. Preoperative cholangitis occurred in 14 (8.2%) and 8 (21.6%) patients in the non-PBD and ERBS group, respectively (P = 0.04). Compared with the non-PBD group, delayed gastric emptying (DGE) and wound infection occurred significantly more often in the ERBS group. The incidence of severe complications was significantly lower in the PTBD group than the non-PBD group (P = 0.03). Postoperative hospital stay and complication rates were significantly higher in the ERBS group than the PTBD group. There were no significant differences in complications between ENBD and other groups. In conclusion, PTBD can improve surgical outcomes by reducing severe complication rate in jaundiced patients following pancreaticoduodenectomy. ERBS increased the rates of DGE and wound infection due to high incidence of cholangitis before operative intervention and should be avoided. ENBD carried no special effect on complications and needs further analysis.

Endoscopic ultrasound versus magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography for common bile duct stones

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) and magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) are tests used in the diagnosis of common bile duct stones in patients suspected of having common bile duct stones prior to undergoing invasive treatment. There has been no systematic review of the accuracy of EUS and MRCP in the diagnosis of common bile duct stones using appropriate reference standards.

OBJECTIVES

To determine and compare the accuracy of EUS and MRCP for the diagnosis of common bile duct stones.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded, BIOSIS, and Clinicaltrials.gov until September 2012. We searched the references of included studies to identify further studies and of systematic reviews identified from various databases (Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), Health Technology Assessment (HTA), Medion, and ARIF (Aggressive Research Intelligence Facility)). We did not restrict studies based on language or publication status, or whether data were collected prospectively or retrospectively.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included studies that provided the number of true positives, false positives, false negatives, and true negatives for EUS or MRCP. We only accepted studies that confirmed the presence of common bile duct stones by extraction of the stones (irrespective of whether this was done by surgical or endoscopic methods) for a positive test, and absence of common bile duct stones by surgical or endoscopic negative exploration of the common bile duct or symptom free follow-up for at least six months for a negative test, as the reference standard in people suspected of having common bile duct stones. We included participants with or without prior diagnosis of cholelithiasis; with or without symptoms and complications of common bile duct stones, with or without prior treatment for common bile duct stones; and before or after cholecystectomy. At least two authors independently screened abstracts and selected studies for inclusion.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently collected the data from each study. We used the bivariate model to obtain pooled estimates of sensitivity and specificity.

MAIN RESULTS

We included a total of 18 studies involving 2366 participants (976 participants with common bile duct stones and 1390 participants without common bile duct stones). Eleven studies evaluated EUS alone, and five studies evaluated MRCP alone. Two studies evaluated both tests. Most studies included patients who were suspected of having common bile duct stones based on abnormal liver function tests; abnormal transabdominal ultrasound; symptoms such as obstructive jaundice, cholangitis, or pancreatitis; or a combination of the above. The proportion of participants who had undergone cholecystectomy varied across studies. Not one of the studies was of high methodological quality. For EUS, the sensitivities ranged between 0.75 and 1.00 and the specificities ranged between 0.85 and 1.00. The summary sensitivity (95% confidence interval (CI)) and specificity (95% CI) of the 13 studies that evaluated EUS (1537 participants; 686 cases and 851 participants without common bile duct stones) were 0.95 (95% CI 0.91 to 0.97) and 0.97 (95% CI 0.94 to 0.99). For MRCP, the sensitivities ranged between 0.77 and 1.00 and the specificities ranged between 0.73 and 0.99. The summary sensitivity and specificity of the seven studies that evaluated MRCP (996 participants; 361 cases and 635 participants without common bile duct stones) were 0.93 (95% CI 0.87 to 0.96) and 0.96 (95% CI 0.90 to 0.98). There was no evidence of a difference in sensitivity or specificity between EUS and MRCP (P value = 0.5). From the included studies, at the median pre-test probability of common bile duct stones of 41% the post-test probabilities (with 95% CI) associated with positive and negative EUS test results were 0.96 (95% CI 0.92 to 0.98) and 0.03 (95% CI 0.02 to 0.06). At the same pre-test probability, the post-test probabilities associated with positive and negative MRCP test results were 0.94 (95% CI 0.87 to 0.97) and 0.05 (95% CI 0.03 to 0.09).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Both EUS and MRCP have high diagnostic accuracy for detection of common bile duct stones. People with positive EUS or MRCP should undergo endoscopic or surgical extraction of common bile duct stones and those with negative EUS or MRCP do not need further invasive tests. However, if the symptoms persist, further investigations will be indicated. The two tests are similar in terms of diagnostic accuracy and the choice of which test to use will be informed by availability and contra-indications to each test. However, it should be noted that the results are based on studies of poor methodological quality and so the results should be interpreted with caution. Further studies that are of high methodological quality are necessary to determine the diagnostic accuracy of EUS and MRCP for the diagnosis of common bile duct stones.

Ultrasound versus liver function tests for diagnosis of common bile duct stones

BACKGROUND

Ultrasound and liver function tests (serum bilirubin and serum alkaline phosphatase) are used as screening tests for the diagnosis of common bile duct stones in people suspected of having common bile duct stones. There has been no systematic review of the diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound and liver function tests.

OBJECTIVES

To determine and compare the accuracy of ultrasound versus liver function tests for the diagnosis of common bile duct stones.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded, BIOSIS, and Clinicaltrials.gov to September 2012. We searched the references of included studies to identify further studies and systematic reviews identified from various databases (Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, Health Technology Assessment, Medion, and ARIF (Aggressive Research Intelligence Facility)). We did not restrict studies based on language or publication status, or whether data were collected prospectively or retrospectively.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included studies that provided the number of true positives, false positives, false negatives, and true negatives for ultrasound, serum bilirubin, or serum alkaline phosphatase. We only accepted studies that confirmed the presence of common bile duct stones by extraction of the stones (irrespective of whether this was done by surgical or endoscopic methods) for a positive test result, and absence of common bile duct stones by surgical or endoscopic negative exploration of the common bile duct, or symptom-free follow-up for at least six months for a negative test result as the reference standard in people suspected of having common bile duct stones. We included participants with or without prior diagnosis of cholelithiasis; with or without symptoms and complications of common bile duct stones, with or without prior treatment for common bile duct stones; and before or after cholecystectomy. At least two authors screened abstracts and selected studies for inclusion independently.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently collected data from each study. Where meta-analysis was possible, we used the bivariate model to summarise sensitivity and specificity.

MAIN RESULTS

Five studies including 523 participants reported the diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound. One studies (262 participants) compared the accuracy of ultrasound, serum bilirubin and serum alkaline phosphatase in the same participants. All the studies included people with symptoms. One study included only participants without previous cholecystectomy but this information was not available from the remaining studies. All the studies were of poor methodological quality. The sensitivities for ultrasound ranged from 0.32 to 1.00, and the specificities ranged from 0.77 to 0.97. The summary sensitivity was 0.73 (95% CI 0.44 to 0.90) and the specificity was 0.91 (95% CI 0.84 to 0.95). At the median pre-test probability of common bile duct stones of 0.408, the post-test probability (95% CI) associated with positive ultrasound tests was 0.85 (95% CI 0.75 to 0.91), and negative ultrasound tests was 0.17 (95% CI 0.08 to 0.33).The single study of liver function tests reported diagnostic accuracy at two cut-offs for bilirubin (greater than 22.23 μmol/L and greater than twice the normal limit) and two cut-offs for alkaline phosphatase (greater than 125 IU/L and greater than twice the normal limit). This study also assessed ultrasound and reported higher sensitivities for bilirubin and alkaline phosphatase at both cut-offs but the specificities of the markers were higher at only the greater than twice the normal limit cut-off. The sensitivity for ultrasound was 0.32 (95% CI 0.15 to 0.54), bilirubin (cut-off greater than 22.23 μmol/L) was 0.84 (95% CI 0.64 to 0.95), and alkaline phosphatase (cut-off greater than 125 IU/L) was 0.92 (95% CI 0.74 to 0.99). The specificity for ultrasound was 0.95 (95% CI 0.91 to 0.97), bilirubin (cut-off greater than 22.23 μmol/L) was 0.91 (95% CI 0.86 to 0.94), and alkaline phosphatase (cut-off greater than 125 IU/L) was 0.79 (95% CI 0.74 to 0.84). No study reported the diagnostic accuracy of a combination of bilirubin and alkaline phosphatase, or combinations with ultrasound.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Many people may have common bile duct stones in spite of having a negative ultrasound or liver function test. Such people may have to be re-tested with other modalities if the clinical suspicion of common bile duct stones is very high because of their symptoms. False-positive results are also possible and further non-invasive testing is recommended to confirm common bile duct stones to avoid the risks of invasive testing.It should be noted that these results were based on few studies of poor methodological quality and the results for ultrasound varied considerably between studies. Therefore, the results should be interpreted with caution. Further studies of high methodological quality are necessary to determine the diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound and liver function tests.

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography versus intraoperative cholangiography for diagnosis of common bile duct stones

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and intraoperative cholangiography (IOC) are tests used in the diagnosis of common bile duct stones in people suspected of having common bile duct stones. There has been no systematic review of the diagnostic accuracy of ERCP and IOC.

OBJECTIVES

To determine and compare the accuracy of ERCP and IOC for the diagnosis of common bile duct stones.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded, BIOSIS, and Clinicaltrials.gov to September 2012. To identify additional studies, we searched the references of included studies and systematic reviews identified from various databases (Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE)), Health Technology Assessment (HTA), Medion, and ARIF (Aggressive Research Intelligence Facility)). We did not restrict studies based on language or publication status, or whether data were collected prospectively or retrospectively.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included studies that provided the number of true positives, false positives, false negatives, and true negatives for ERCP or IOC. We only accepted studies that confirmed the presence of common bile duct stones by extraction of the stones (irrespective of whether this was done by surgical or endoscopic methods) for a positive test, and absence of common bile duct stones by surgical or endoscopic negative exploration of the common bile duct, or symptom-free follow-up for at least six months for a negative test as the reference standard in people suspected of having common bile duct stones. We included participants with or without prior diagnosis of cholelithiasis; with or without symptoms and complications of common bile duct stones; with or without prior treatment for common bile duct stones; and before or after cholecystectomy. At least two authors screened abstracts and selected studies for inclusion independently.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently collected data from each study. We used the bivariate model to summarise the sensitivity and specificity of the tests.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified five studies including 318 participants (180 participants with and 138 participants without common bile duct stones) that reported the diagnostic accuracy of ERCP and five studies including 654 participants (125 participants with and 529 participants without common bile duct stones) that reported the diagnostic accuracy of IOC. Most studies included people with symptoms (participants with jaundice or pancreatitis) suspected of having common bile duct stones based on blood tests, ultrasound, or both, prior to the performance of ERCP or IOC. Most studies included participants who had not previously undergone removal of the gallbladder (cholecystectomy). None of the included studies was of high methodological quality as evaluated by the QUADAS-2 tool (quality assessment tool for diagnostic accuracy studies). The sensitivities of ERCP ranged between 0.67 and 0.94 and the specificities ranged between 0.92 and 1.00. For ERCP, the summary sensitivity was 0.83 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.72 to 0.90) and specificity was 0.99 (95% CI 0.94 to 1.00). The sensitivities of IOC ranged between 0.75 and 1.00 and the specificities ranged between 0.96 and 1.00. For IOC, the summary sensitivity was 0.99 (95% CI 0.83 to 1.00) and specificity was 0.99 (95% CI 0.95 to 1.00). For ERCP, at the median pre-test probability of common bile duct stones of 0.35 estimated from the included studies (i.e., 35% of people suspected of having common bile duct stones were confirmed to have gallstones by the reference standard), the post-test probabilities associated with positive test results was 0.97 (95% CI 0.88 to 0.99) and negative test results was 0.09 (95% CI 0.05 to 0.14). For IOC, at the median pre-test probability of common bile duct stones of 0.35, the post-test probabilities associated with positive test results was 0.98 (95% CI 0.85 to 1.00) and negative test results was 0.01 (95% CI 0.00 to 0.10). There was weak evidence of a difference in sensitivity (P value = 0.05) with IOC showing higher sensitivity than ERCP. There was no evidence of a difference in specificity (P value = 0.7) with both tests having similar specificity.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Although the sensitivity of IOC appeared to be better than that of ERCP, this finding may be unreliable because none of the studies compared both tests in the same study populations and most of the studies were methodologically flawed. It appears that both tests were fairly accurate in guiding further invasive treatment as most people diagnosed with common bile duct stones by these tests had common bile duct stones. Some people may have common bile duct stones in spite of having a negative ERCP or IOC result. Such people may have to be re-tested if the clinical suspicion of common bile duct stones is very high because of their symptoms or persistently abnormal liver function tests. However, the results should be interpreted with caution given the limited quantity and quality of the evidence.

Should preoperative biliary drainage be routinely performed for obstructive jaundice with resectable tumor?

Obstructive jaundice is a common clinical manifestation of malignant lesions adjacent to extrahepatic bile duct, ampulla or pancreatic head. Animal experiments and some clinical observations have demonstrated that preoperative biliary drainage could improve liver function as well as reduce endotoxemia, thereby reducing the incidence of perioperative complications. However, a number of randomized, controlled studies have found that preoperative biliary drainage failed to improve prognosis or reduce the incidence of perioperative complications; in contrast, it might increase the incidence of complications and cause extra financial burden on patients. Thus, whether preoperative biliary drainage should be performed or not is controversial. Since clinical randomized controlled studies are more relevant in clinical setting, we believe that preoperative biliary drainage should not be routinely performed for obstructive jaundice with resectable tumors. More randomized, controlled, prospective studies should be conducted for further exploration.

Pathogenesis of intestinal barrier dysfunction in obstructive jaundice

Intestinal mucosal barrier is a key structure that normally prevents the passage of harmful molecules across the mucosa and into the circulation, including mechanical barrier, immunological barrier, biological barrier and chemical barrier. Obstructive jaundice (OJ) is frequently associated with infectious complications, mainly due to sepsis and renal dysfunction. The key events in the pathophysiology of these complications are endotoxemia of gut origin and increased intestinal permeability because of intestinal barrier dysfunction, as demonstrated in experimental and clinical studies. However, the mechanisms involved in this phenomenon remain obscure. Here we review recent progress in understanding the pathogenesis of intestinal barrier dysfunction in OJ.