
==== Front
BMC Gastroenterol
BMC Gastroenterol
BMC Gastroenterology
1471-230X
BioMed Central London

3397
10.1186/s12876-024-03397-3
Systematic Review
Efficacy and safety of endoscopic nasobiliary drainage versus percutaneous transhepatic cholangial drainage in the treatment of advanced hilar cholangiocarcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Zhou Huiling
Liu Chunxia
Yu Xianhuan
Su Mingye
Yan Jingwen m13719098531@163.com

Shi Xiangde sxdsdgsdg@126.com

grid.12981.33 0000 0001 2360 039X Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hospital, Sun Yat‐sen University, Guangzhou, 510120 P. R. China
6 9 2024
6 9 2024
2024
24 30212 2 2024
30 8 2024
© The Author(s) 2024
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.
Objective

To evaluate and compare the efficacy and safety of Endoscopic Nasobiliary Drainage (ENBD) and Percutaneous Transhepatic Cholangiography Drainage (PTCD) in patients with advanced Hilar Cholangiocarcinoma (HCCA) through a meta-analysis of clinical studies.

Methods

We searched Chinese and English databases, including China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang database, PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science, for relevant literatures on PTCD and ENBD for advanced HCCA clinical trials. Two investigators independently screened the literatures, and the quality of the included studies was evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). The primary endpoint was the success rate of biliary drainage operation, while secondary endpoints included Total Bilirubin (TBIL) change, acute pancreatitis, biliary tract infection, hemobilia, and other complications. R software was used for data analysis.

Results

A comprehensive database search, based on predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria, yielded 26 articles for this study. Analysis revealed that PTCD had a significantly higher success rate than ENBD [OR (95% CI) = 2.63 (1.98, 3.49), Z=6.70, P<0.05]. PTCD was also more effective in reducing TBIL levels post-drainage [SMD (95%CI) =-0.13 (-0.23, -0.03), Z=-2.61, P<0.05]. While ENBD demonstrated a lower overall complication rate [OR (95%CI) = 0.60 (0.43, 0.84), Z=-2.99, P<0.05], it was associated with a significantly lower incidence of post-drainage biliary hemorrhage compared to PTCD [OR=3.02, 95%CI: (1.94-4.71), Z= 4.89, P<0.01].

Conclusions

This meta-analysis compares the efficacy and safety of ENBD and PTCD for palliative treatment of advanced HCCA. While both are effective, PTCD showed superiority in achieving successful drainage, reducing TBIL, and lowering the incidence of acute pancreatitis and biliary infections. However, ENBD had a lower risk of post-drainage bleeding. Clinicians should weigh these risks and benefits when choosing between ENBD and PTCD for individual patients. Further research is needed to confirm these findings and explore long-term outcomes.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12876-024-03397-3.

Keywords

Endoscopic nasobiliary drainage (ENBD)
Hilar cholangiocarcinoma (HCCA)
Meat-analysis
Percutaneous transhepatic cholangial drainage (PTCD)
issue-copyright-statement© BioMed Central Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2024
==== Body
pmcIntroduction

Hilar cholangiocarcinoma (HCCA), a highly aggressive malignant tumor of the digestive system, is also known as Klatskin tumor after its detailed description by Klatskin in 1965 [1–3]. Representing 60%-70% of all intrahepatic and extrahepatic biliary tract tumors, HCCA carries a grim prognosis, with a median survival time of less than 6 months for patients without radical resection [4, 5].

The disease’s hallmark is bile duct obstruction, leading to increased pressure, bile capillary expansion, and reversed bile flow into the bloodstream. This can result in liver failure, biliary tract infections, sepsis, and septic shock, the primary causes of death in HCCA patients [6, 7].

Effective biliary drainage is crucial for managing HCCA. It promotes the excretion of metabolic waste and toxins, reduces liver cell damage, and ultimately improves quality of life and prolongs survival [4, 8]. Two minimally invasive biliary drainage methods are commonly employed: endoscopic nasobiliary drainage (ENBD) [9, 10] and percutaneous transhepatic cholangial drainage (PTCD) [3, 8].

PTCD involves placing a puncture needle under ultrasound or X-ray guidance through the skin into the bile duct above the obstruction site to drain bile externally [11, 12]. This approach offers several advantages: simplicity, low technical requirements, ease of implementation in primary hospitals, avoidance of general anesthesia, and fewer surgical contraindications [13, 14]. However, PTCD also presents limitations, including the need for prolonged drainage tube placement, potential for infection, and patient discomfort.

ENBD, an endoscopic technique based on Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), involves inserting a nasobiliary drainage tube into the common bile duct and guiding it through the duodenum, stomach, esophagus, pharynx, and throat, ultimately exiting through the nose [15–19]. This method facilitates both endoscopic diagnosis and treatment.

While PTCD was once the preferred biliary drainage method for advanced HCCA, ENBD has emerged as a viable alternative with the advancements in endoscopic technology [3, 20]. Both methods aim to relieve biliary obstruction and reduce pressure, but their effectiveness and impact on patient prognosis remain unclear.

This meta-analysis aims to evaluate and compare the efficacy and safety of PTCD and ENBD in treating HCCA by synthesizing data from published clinical studies. Our goal is to provide robust evidence-based guidance for clinicians in selecting the most appropriate minimally invasive biliary drainage method for their HCCA patients.

Methods

Literature retrieval strategy

We conducted the literature search through six widely used databases: PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Web of Science, Wanfang, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI). We strictly followed the PICOS principle, and the search terms included “klatskin tumor, hilar cholangiocarcinoma, endoscopic nasobiliary drainage, percutaneous transhepatic cholangial drainage, TBIL change after biliary drainage, acute pancreatitis after biliary drainage, biliary tract infection, hemobilia, patient survival”. We used a combination of MeSH terms and free text words, and adjusted the search strategy according to the characteristics of different databases from inception to August 31, 2023 (Search strategies are provided in the Supporting document).

Eligibility criteria

Inclusion criteria: (1) HCCA patients who could not undergo radical resection surgery; (2) comparison of two techniques: PTCD and ENBD, and (3) randomized controlled trials (RCTs), cohort study and case-control study. The exclusion criteria were included: (1) the sample size was less than 10; (2) not supported by appropriate data in the study; (3) animal experiments, reviews, and case reports and (4) low-quality studies assessed using Newcastle-Ottawa tool (The total score is 9, with a score greater than or equal to 6 indicating a high quality of the literature).

Studies had to report at least one predefined primary or secondary endpoint (e.g., success rate of biliary drainage procedures, change in TBIL, incidence of acute pancreatitis, etc.). Studies comparing only two methods but not reporting any relevant end points were excluded.

Two researchers (HZ and CL) independently screened according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. If there were different opinions, the inclusion was discussed with the third researcher (MS). According to the literature data extraction table set in advance, the relevant data of the final included studies were extracted. The detailed flow-chart for the literature search and selection strategy was exhibited in Fig. 1.Fig. 1 Modified Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analysis (PRISMA) flow diagram of the literature search

Information extraction

The contents of data extraction included: (1) basic information of literature: author, country, publication time, research type, total sample size, etc. (2) Outcome indicators: the success rate of drainage, the change of TBIL after drainage, the occurrence of complications after drainage (acute pancreatitis, biliary tract infection, hemobilia), and the survival of patients after drainage. The primary endpoint of this study was success rate of biliary drainage operation. Secondary endpoints included Total Bilirubin (TBIL) change after biliary drainage, acute pancreatitis after biliary drainage, biliary tract infection, hemobilia and other complications.

Statistical analysis

We used R (Version 4.1.2) within the RStudio (Version 1.4.1) for statistical analysis. The following R packages were utilized ‘meta’, ‘metafor’. The Cochran’s Q test will be used to assess the heterogeneity and I2 will be calculated to quantify inconsistency. If I2>50%, a fixed effects model will be used, otherwise, a random effects model will be used. The odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) will be calculated to analyze the dichotomous variables. Standardized mean difference (SMD) will be calculated to analyze the continuous variables. Funnel plot was used to evaluate the publication bias of the studies included in the meta-analysis.

Results

Study characteristics

After applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria, a total of 26 studies published between 2007 and 2023 were selected for this review (Fig. 1). These studies had a combined sample size of 2533, with 1295 participants in the ENBD group and 1238 in the PTCD group. The majority of the studies were conducted in China (n=24), followed by South Korea (n=1) and Canada (n=1). The basic characteristics of the included studies are presented in Table 1.Table 1 Basic characteristics of the included literatures

Author	Year	Location	Study type	Age	Gendera	Success rate	PTCD/ENBDb	NOS score	
PTCD	ENBD	Male	Female	PTCD	ENBD	
Cai et al.	2010	China	Retrospective	65.20±10.10	60.30±8.90	12/20	13/15	92.00%	80.00%	25/35	8[24]	
Chen et al.	2023	China	Retrospective	50.41±15.28	52.87±13.96	42/38	68/45	-	-	110/83	7[1]	
Chen et al.	2020	China	Retrospective	64.65±14.78	67.23±11.74	31/52	26/36	82.40%	81.80%	57/88	7[25]	
Ding et al.	2012	China	Retrospective	59.90±13.60	61.20±14.3	52/49	30/64	85.58%	70.80%	82/133	8[29]	
Gong et al.	2019	China	Retrospective	59.28±5.79	60.63±5.81	26/25	22/22	89.58%	76.60%	48/47	7[26]	
Huang et al.	2016	China	Retrospective	58.80±6.50	58.70±6.30	39/42	23/26	95.20%	82.40%	62/68	8[11]	
Lee et al.	2007	South Korea	Retrospective	67.20±1.10	66.80±2.90	46/23	20/11	97.70%	93.90%	66/34	9[36]	
Li et al.	2016	China	Retrospective	63.30±12.10	64.92±12.71	33/32	27/21	-	-	60/53	8[37]	
Liang et al.	2020	China	Retrospective	61.30±6.90	62.20±7.30	24/19	18/17	85.70%	63.90%	42/36	7[38]	
Liu et al.	2023	China	RCT	54.58±2.65	54.60±2.67	24/25	18/17	-	-	42/42	8[19]	
Liu et al.	2017	China	Retrospective	-	-	-	-	95.56%	91.53%	45/59	7[39]	
Meng et al.	2023	China	Retrospective	67.74±5.98	67.79±5.97	25/26	18/17	88.37%	69.77%	43/43	9[2]	
Niu et al.	2017	China	Retrospective	61.20±11.40	58.40±9.60	20/22	16/10	-	-	36/32	9[13]	
Shi et al.	2012	China	Retrospective	54.80±9.50	55.70±9.30	23/29	8/15	89.70%	86.40%	31/44	9[12]	
Sui et al.	2017	China	Retrospective	61.40±13.70	26	33	-	-	27/32	9[28]	
Thomas et al.	2012	Canada	Retrospective	66.00±10.60	24/54	19/33	98.00%	78.00%	42/87	8[31]	
Wan et al.	2019	China	Retrospective	56.83±4.52	56.95±4.61	19/21	15/13	88.20%	67.60%	34/34	9[23]	
Wang et al.	2019	China	Retrospective	61.04±6.94	60.98±6.91	21/20	23/24	86.36%	68.18%	44/44	8[40]	
Wang et al.	2018	China	Retrospective	61.10±2.80	61.30±2.50	16/17	15/14	93.50%	77.40%	31/31	7[27]	
Zhang et al.	2022	China	Retrospective	55.53±3.94	56.02±3.04	24/22	17/19	-	-	41/41	8[41]	
Zhang et al.	2017	China	Retrospective	49.50±20.50	63	50	85.90%	85.70%	71/42	8[18]	
Zhang et al.	2017	China	Retrospective	48.08±0.05	48.11±0.01	48/43	27/27	-	-	75/70	7[42]	
Zhang et al.	2016	China	Retrospective	60.24±6.16	60.72±6.45	18/17	16/16	-	-	34/33	8[43]	
Zhang et al.	2011	China	Retrospective	63.40±6.37	59.40±6.45	13/14	12/11	88.00%	68.00%	25/25	8[30]	
Zheng et al.	2018	China	Retrospective	60.20±4.80	61.40±4.30	28/30	22/22	86.00%	67.30%	50/52	9[32]	
Zhu et al.	2020	China	Retrospective	70.80±14.30	68.10±15.70	22/24	18/18	-	-	40/42	8[14]	
aPTCD/ENBD

bSample size

-not reported

Success rate of biliary drainage operation

We included 15 studies in the analysis of drainage success rates, with a total sample size of 1500 cases (798 in the ENBD group and 702 in the PTCD group). The heterogeneity analysis revealed low heterogeneity (I2=0, P>0.05), allowing us to combine the effect sizes using a fixed-effect model. The meta-analysis results showed a significant difference in drainage success rates between the two groups [OR (95%CI) = 2.63 (1.98, 3.49), Z=6.70, P<0.01] (Fig. 2), indicating that PTCD is more effective than ENBD in achieving successful biliary drainage.Fig. 2 Forest plots of the success rate of biliary drainage operation meta-analysis

Changes of total bilirubin (TBIL) after biliary drainage

Sixteen studies were included to analyze the change of TBIL after ENBD and PTCD drainage, with a total sample of 1575 patients, including 820 patients in the ENBD group and 755 patients in the PTCD group. The heterogeneity of the results was analyzed (I2=0<50%, P>0.1), indicating that the heterogeneity was not obvious. The effect size was combined by fixed effect model, and the results of Meta-analysis showed that the difference was statistically significant [SMD (95%CI) =-0.13 (-0.23, -0.03), Z=-2.61, P<0.05] (Fig. 3), suggesting that PTCD was more effective than ENBD in the change of TBIL after biliary drainage.Fig. 3 Forest plots of the effect of biliary drainage meta-analysis

Complications after biliary drainage

This meta-analysis included 25 studies comparing complications after ENBD and PTCD, with a total sample of 2534 cases (1298 ENBD and 1236 PTCD). The main complications analyzed were acute pancreatitis, biliary tract infection, and biliary tract hemorrhage.

Heterogeneity analysis revealed significant heterogeneity among the studies (I2>50%, P<0.05). Therefore, a random-effects model was employed to combine effect sizes. The meta-analysis results showed statistically significant differences between ENBD and PTCD [OR (95% CI) = 0.60 (0.43, 0.84), Z = -2.99, P<0.05] (Fig. 4), indicating that ENBD is associated with a higher incidence of overall complications after biliary drainage compared to PTCD.Fig. 4 Forest plots of complications after biliary drainage meta-analysis

Subsequently, we conducted a subgroup analysis focusing on the occurrence of hemobilia after biliary drainage. This analysis included 16 studies with a total sample size of 1700 cases (883 ENBD and 817 PTCD). Heterogeneity analysis for hemobilia showed no significant heterogeneity (I2 = 16.3% < 50%, P =0.27>0.1). Consequently, a fixed-effect model was used to combine the effect sizes. The meta-analysis results for hemobilia revealed a statistically significant difference [OR (95% CI) = 3.02 (1.94, 4.71), Z =4.89, P<0.01] (Fig. 5), suggesting that ENBD is associated with a lower incidence of hemobilia compared to PTCD. In conclusion, although ENBD appears to have a higher overall complication rate, it demonstrates a lower incidence of hemobilia compared to PTCD.Fig. 5 Forest plots of biliary tract bleeding after biliary drainage meta-analysis

Publication bias and sensitivity analysis

We examined the publication shift of the included studies by funnel plot (Fig. 6), and the results showed that the funnel plot shape of drainage success rate, TBIL, and postoperative complications showed basically symmetry. No significant publication bias was observed, and the results were highly reliable. Sensitivity analysis of effect size exhibited no significant difference for each data.Fig. 6 Funnel plots of the meta-analysis. A 15 articles in the meta-analysis of the success rate of biliary drainage operation. B 16 articles in the meta-analysis of Changes of total bilirubin (TBIL) after biliary drainage. C 25 articles in the meta-analysis of postoperative complications. D 16 articles in the meta-analysis biliary tract bleeding after biliary drainage

Discussion

In the treatment of patients with HCCA, PTCD compared endoscopic nasal biliary drainage ENBD have a higher success rate of surgery and a lower incidence of complications. In addition, PTCD in reducing total bilirubin TBIL level also shows advantage. These findings provide an important basis for clinical decision-making and help to improve the treatment outcomes of HCCA patients. Our results are consistent with previous reported basic literature [21, 22]. ENBD low success rate of surgery could be due to the following factors: first, ENBD operation process, and thread easily into the main pancreatic duct stent, cause the failure of operation [23, 24]. Secondly, biliary obstruction caused by HCCA belongs to high obstruction, which increases the difficulty of guidewire and catheter access to the obstruction site [16, 25, 26]. In addition, the duodenal papilla structure is not clear due to tumor invasion in some patients, which makes ENBD more difficult to perform [27, 28]. In contrast, PTCD is less difficult to perform, but its success rate is largely dependent on the condition of the bile duct [29, 30]. Regarding complications, we found that the incidence of postoperative complications of ENBD than PTCD. This may be due to the contrast agent entering the pancreatic duct and exudation during the ENBD procedure, which caused damage to the pancreas. Repeated operation may lead to duodenal papilla spasm and bile reflux into the pancreas. Prolonged procedural time may also increase the risk of complications in patients with Bismuth-Corlette type III or IV [31]. PTCD, by contrast, is the main complication of biliary tract bleeding, the incidence of 3% to 14%, may be related to improper puncture Angle control or puncture after bile extraction [32] too much too fast.

Although PTCD has shown advantages in several aspects, ENBD still has its unique value in some situations. ENBD postoperative nursing is relatively simple, patients life quality is higher. For patients without high-risk complications, ENBD can be used as the first choice for palliative jaundice reduction [33, 34]. In addition, PTCD can be used as an effective alternative after ENBD failure [35].

The limitations of this study is to include research quantity is limited, and most of the retrospective study, there may be a selection bias. More high-quality randomized controlled trials are needed to further verify our findings in the future. In addition, our analysis focuses on the short-term effect, for the long-term outcome of evaluation still needs more research.

In a word, this meta-analysis for HCCA patients with biliary drainage method provides an important basis. PTCD in the success rate of surgery, complications and reduce TBIL level shows the advantage. However, in view of the two methods have their own characteristics, clinical doctors should consider when choosing the drainage method. When choosing between ENBD and PTCD, clinicians should carefully consider the individual patient’s clinical situation and the potential risks and benefits. For patients at higher risk of post-drainage bleeding, ENBD may be the more appropriate choice. Conversely, patients at higher risk of complications such as acute pancreatitis or biliary infections may benefit from PTCD. Further research with larger sample sizes and longer follow-up periods is crucial to corroborate these findings and explore the long-term outcomes of these two interventional approaches.

Conclusions

This meta-analysis compares the efficacy and safety of ENBD and PTCD for palliative treatment of advanced HCCA. While both are effective, PTCD showed superiority in achieving successful drainage, reducing TBIL, and lowering the incidence of acute pancreatitis and biliary infections. However, ENBD had a lower risk of post-drainage bleeding. Clinicians should weigh these risks and benefits when choosing between ENBD and PTCD for individual patients. Further research is needed to confirm these findings and explore long-term outcomes.

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Material 1.

Abbreviations

ENBD Endoscopic Nasobiliary Drainage

PTCD Percutaneous Transhepatic Cholangiography Drainage

HCCA Hilar Cholangiocarcinoma

NOS Newcastle-Ottawa Scale

TBIL Total Bilirubin

OR Odds Ratio

CI Confidence Interval

SMD Standardized Mean Difference

Acknowledgements

Thanks to Natural Science Foundation of Guangdong Province for supporting this study.

Authors’ contributions

JY and XS were involved in the administrative support, reviewing, and revised the manuscript. HZ and CL was involved in the conception and design of the manuscript, and drafted the initial manuscript. XY was involved in data analysis. MS was involved in the collection and assembly of data. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.

Funding

This study was supported by the Natural Science Foundation of Guangdong Province (No.2020A1515010181), the Regional Joint Fund of Basic and Applied Basic Research Foundation of Guangdong Province -Youth Fund project(2019A1515110037), Guangdong Clinical major Technology Project (2023P-ZD17).

Availability of data and materials

Data is provided within the manuscript and supplementary information files.

Declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Huiling Zhou and Chunxia Liu contributed equally to this work.
==== Refs
References

1. Chen L Wu Z Guo C Wang G Tu K Jiang J Evaluation of clinical indications of three treatments for choledocholithiasis with acute cholangitis Int J Gen Med 2023 16 4669 4680 10.2147/IJGM.S429781 37868815
Chen L, Wu Z, Guo C, Wang G, Tu K, Jiang J. Evaluation of clinical indications of three treatments for choledocholithiasis with acute cholangitis. Int J Gen Med. 2023;16:4669–80.37868815 10.2147/IJGM.S429781
2. Meng M Feng H Tang S Peng X Efficacy of ultrasound-guided percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage for acute obstructive suppurative cholangitis combined with septic shock Clinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil) 2023 78 100258 10.1016/j.clinsp.2023.100258 37523978
Meng M, Feng H, Tang S, Peng X. Efficacy of ultrasound-guided percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage for acute obstructive suppurative cholangitis combined with septic shock. Clinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil). 2023;78:100258.37523978 10.1016/j.clinsp.2023.100258
3. Liu JG Wu J Wang J Shu GM Wang YJ Lou C Zhang J Du Z Endoscopic biliary drainage versus percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage in patients with resectable hilar cholangiocarcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 2018 28 9 1053 1060 10.1089/lap.2017.0744 29641365
Liu JG, Wu J, Wang J, Shu GM, Wang YJ, Lou C, Zhang J, Du Z. Endoscopic biliary drainage versus percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage in patients with resectable hilar cholangiocarcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2018;28(9):1053–60.29641365 10.1089/lap.2017.0744
4. Hu HJ Wu ZR Jin YW Ma WJ Yang Q Wang JK Liu F Li FY Minimally invasive surgery for hilar cholangiocarcinoma: state of art and future perspectives ANZ J Surg 2019 89 5 476 480 10.1111/ans.14765 30136376
Hu HJ, Wu ZR, Jin YW, Ma WJ, Yang Q, Wang JK, Liu F, Li FY. Minimally invasive surgery for hilar cholangiocarcinoma: state of art and future perspectives. ANZ J Surg. 2019;89(5):476–80.30136376 10.1111/ans.14765
5. Frosio F Mocchegiani F Conte G Bona ED Vecchi A Nicolini D Vivarelli M Neoadjuvant therapy in the treatment of hilar cholangiocarcinoma: review of the literature World J Gastrointest Surg 2019 11 6 279 286 10.4240/wjgs.v11.i6.279 31367275
Frosio F, Mocchegiani F, Conte G, Bona ED, Vecchi A, Nicolini D, Vivarelli M. Neoadjuvant therapy in the treatment of hilar cholangiocarcinoma: review of the literature. World J Gastrointest Surg. 2019;11(6):279–86.31367275 10.4240/wjgs.v11.i6.279
6. Siegel RL Miller KD Jemal A Cancer statistics, 2020 CA Cancer J Clin 2020 70 1 7 30 10.3322/caac.21590 31912902
Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2020. CA Cancer J Clin. 2020;70(1):7–30.31912902 10.3322/caac.21590
7. Kwiatkowski S Knap B Przystupski D Saczko J Kędzierska E Knap-Czop K Kotlińska J Michel O Kotowski K Kulbacka J Photodynamic therapy - mechanisms, photosensitizers and combinations Biomed Pharmacother. 2018 106 1098 1107 10.1016/j.biopha.2018.07.049 30119176
Kwiatkowski S, Knap B, Przystupski D, Saczko J, Kędzierska E, Knap-Czop K, Kotlińska J, Michel O, Kotowski K, Kulbacka J. Photodynamic therapy - mechanisms, photosensitizers and combinations. Biomed Pharmacother. 2018;106:1098–107.30119176 10.1016/j.biopha.2018.07.049
8. Lauterio A De Carlis R Centonze L Buscemi V Incarbone N Vella I De Carlis L Current surgical management of peri-hilar and intra-hepatic cholangiocarcinoma Cancers 2021 13 15 3657 10.3390/cancers13153657 34359560
Lauterio A, De Carlis R, Centonze L, Buscemi V, Incarbone N, Vella I, De Carlis L. Current surgical management of peri-hilar and intra-hepatic cholangiocarcinoma. Cancers. 2021;13(15):3657.34359560 10.3390/cancers13153657
9. Konishi K Izumi R Miyazaki I Endoscopic naso-biliary drainage (ENBD) Nihon Rinsho 1984 42 10 2304 2308 6520956
Konishi K, Izumi R, Miyazaki I. Endoscopic naso-biliary drainage (ENBD). Nihon Rinsho. 1984;42(10):2304–8.6520956
10. Itagaki Y Yamamoto K Kikuchi T Takano H Nishigami K Fukunaga A Ichimura T Manase H Hirano S Laparoscopic cholecystectomy after transcatheter arterial embolisation for haemobilia due to a pseudoaneurysm in the gallbladder: a case report SAGE Open Med Case Rep 2023 11 2050313x231166777 37122424
Itagaki Y, Yamamoto K, Kikuchi T, Takano H, Nishigami K, Fukunaga A, Ichimura T, Manase H, Hirano S. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy after transcatheter arterial embolisation for haemobilia due to a pseudoaneurysm in the gallbladder: a case report. SAGE Open Med Case Rep. 2023;11:2050313x231166777.37122424
11. Huang L Shi Y Wang L Analysis of advantages and disadvantages of endoscopic biliary stenting in palliative treatment of hilar cholangiocarcinoma J Hunan Normal Univ(Med Sci). 2016 13 56 58
Huang L, Shi Y, Wang L. Analysis of advantages and disadvantages of endoscopic biliary stenting in palliative treatment of hilar cholangiocarcinoma. J Hunan Normal Univ(Med Sci). 2016;13:56–8.
12. Shi L Tang L Wang T Zhang B Metal biliary stent placement for hilar cholangiocarcinoma Chin J Gen Surg 2012 21 918 921
Shi L, Tang L, Wang T, Zhang B. Metal biliary stent placement for hilar cholangiocarcinoma. Chin J Gen Surg. 2012;21:918–21.
13. Niu H Li M Clinical efficacy of different drainage methods in the treatment of jaundice caused by hilar cholangiocarcinoma Chin J Gastrointest Endosc (Electronic Edition) 2017 4 103 108
Niu H, Li M. Clinical efficacy of different drainage methods in the treatment of jaundice caused by hilar cholangiocarcinoma. Chin J Gastrointest Endosc (Electronic Edition). 2017;4:103–8.
14. Zhu J Feng H Zhang D Li R Li J Peng H Tang W Hu D Wu W Hu K Percutaneous transhepatic cholangiography and drainage and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatograph for hilar cholangiocarcinoma: which one is preferred? Rev Esp Enferm Dig 2020 112 12 893 897 33118356
Zhu J, Feng H, Zhang D, Li R, Li J, Peng H, Tang W, Hu D, Wu W, Hu K, et al. Percutaneous transhepatic cholangiography and drainage and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatograph for hilar cholangiocarcinoma: which one is preferred? Rev Esp Enferm Dig. 2020;112(12):893–7.33118356
15. Niu F Liu YD Chen RX Niu YJ Safety and efficacy of enhanced recovery after surgery in elderly patients after therapeutic endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography Wideochir Inne Tech Maloinwazyjne. 2019 14 3 394 400 31534569
Niu F, Liu YD, Chen RX, Niu YJ. Safety and efficacy of enhanced recovery after surgery in elderly patients after therapeutic endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Wideochir Inne Tech Maloinwazyjne. 2019;14(3):394–400.31534569
16. Turan AS Jenniskens S Martens JM Rutten M Yo LSF van Strijen MJL Drenth JPH Siersema PD van Geenen EJM Complications of percutaneous transhepatic cholangiography and biliary drainage, a multicenter observational study Abdomin Radiol (New York) 2022 47 9 3338 3344 10.1007/s00261-021-03207-4
Turan AS, Jenniskens S, Martens JM, Rutten M, Yo LSF, van Strijen MJL, Drenth JPH, Siersema PD, van Geenen EJM. Complications of percutaneous transhepatic cholangiography and biliary drainage, a multicenter observational study. Abdomin Radiol (New York). 2022;47(9):3338–44.10.1007/s00261-021-03207-4
17. Karagyozov PI Tishkov I Boeva I Draganov K Endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage-current status and future perspectives World J Gastrointest Endosc 2021 13 12 607 618 10.4253/wjge.v13.i12.607 35070022
Karagyozov PI, Tishkov I, Boeva I, Draganov K. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage-current status and future perspectives. World J Gastrointest Endosc. 2021;13(12):607–18.35070022 10.4253/wjge.v13.i12.607
18. Zhang D Tao J Bai G Comparative study of reducing jaundice treatment of advanced hilar cholangiocarcinoma Chin J Laparosc Surg ( Electronic Edition) 2017 10 311 314
Zhang D, Tao J, Bai G. Comparative study of reducing jaundice treatment of advanced hilar cholangiocarcinoma. Chin J Laparosc Surg ( Electronic Edition). 2017;10:311–4.
19. Liu S Liu M Liang Y Comparison of percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage and endoscopic nasobiliary drainage in the treatment of hilar cholangiocarcinoma Pract J Cancer 2023 38 823 825
Liu S, Liu M, Liang Y. Comparison of percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage and endoscopic nasobiliary drainage in the treatment of hilar cholangiocarcinoma. Pract J Cancer. 2023;38:823–5.
20. Buis CI Hoekstra H Verdonk RC Porte RJ Causes and consequences of ischemic-type biliary lesions after liver transplantation J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg 2006 13 6 517 524 10.1007/s00534-005-1080-2 17139425
Buis CI, Hoekstra H, Verdonk RC, Porte RJ. Causes and consequences of ischemic-type biliary lesions after liver transplantation. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg. 2006;13(6):517–24.17139425 10.1007/s00534-005-1080-2
21. Dar FS Atiq M Shahzadi N Ainy SK Rana A Bhatti ABH Outcomes after surgical resection of hilar cholangiocarcinoma J Coll Physicians Surg Pak 2019 29 9 874 877 10.29271/jcpsp.2019.09.874 31455485
Dar FS, Atiq M, Shahzadi N, Ainy SK, Rana A, Bhatti ABH. Outcomes after surgical resection of hilar cholangiocarcinoma. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak. 2019;29(9):874–7.31455485 10.29271/jcpsp.2019.09.874
22. Tashima T Ogawa T Kawasaki T Ryozawa S Successful endoscopic resection by using gel immersion and the technique of endoscopic papillectomy for a tumor adjacent to the papilla of Vater VideoGIE 2022 7 9 312 317 10.1016/j.vgie.2022.04.002 36117941
Tashima T, Ogawa T, Kawasaki T, Ryozawa S. Successful endoscopic resection by using gel immersion and the technique of endoscopic papillectomy for a tumor adjacent to the papilla of Vater. VideoGIE. 2022;7(9):312–7.36117941 10.1016/j.vgie.2022.04.002
23. Wan B He W Comparison of percutaneous transhepatic cholangial drainage versus endoscopic nasobiliary drainage in the treatment of hilar cholangiocarcinoma Chin J Clin Oncol Rehabil 2019 26 544 547
Wan B, He W. Comparison of percutaneous transhepatic cholangial drainage versus endoscopic nasobiliary drainage in the treatment of hilar cholangiocarcinoma. Chin J Clin Oncol Rehabil. 2019;26:544–7.
24. Cai Y Zhang H Kong L Ma M Chen X Comparison of complications and indications of two palliative treatment for hilar cholangio carcino⁃ ma Chin J Integr Surg 2010 16 294 297
Cai Y, Zhang H, Kong L, Ma M, Chen X. Comparison of complications and indications of two palliative treatment for hilar cholangio carcino⁃ ma. Chin J Integr Surg. 2010;16:294–7.
25. Chen S Huang Q Palliative reduction of jaundice in 188 patients with hilar cholangiocarcinoma J Hepatobiliary Surg 2020 28 13 16
Chen S, Huang Q. Palliative reduction of jaundice in 188 patients with hilar cholangiocarcinoma. J Hepatobiliary Surg. 2020;28:13–6.
26. Gong M Han M Effect of endoscopic retrograde biliary stent implantation and percutaneous hepatic puncture biliary stent implantation on hilar cholangiocarcinoma Contemp Med 2019 25 152 154
Gong M, Han M. Effect of endoscopic retrograde biliary stent implantation and percutaneous hepatic puncture biliary stent implantation on hilar cholangiocarcinoma. Contemp Med. 2019;25:152–4.
27. Wang X Liu J Jiang B Clinical effect of endoscopic retrograde biliary stent implantation and percutaneous transhepatic biliary stent implantation in the palliative treatment of hilar cholangiocarcinoma J Clin Exp Med 2018 17 1563 1567
Wang X, Liu J, Jiang B. Clinical effect of endoscopic retrograde biliary stent implantation and percutaneous transhepatic biliary stent implantation in the palliative treatment of hilar cholangiocarcinoma. J Clin Exp Med. 2018;17:1563–7.
28. Sui X Tang H Xiao G Clinical effects and outcomes of palliative therapy to hilar cholangiocarcinoma: a report of 218 cases Chin J Gen Surg 2017 26 953 958
Sui X, Tang H, Xiao G. Clinical effects and outcomes of palliative therapy to hilar cholangiocarcinoma: a report of 218 cases. Chin J Gen Surg. 2017;26:953–8.
29. Ding G Qin M Zhou F Comparative analysis of two methods of palliative treatment for hilar cholangiocarcinoma Chongqing Med 2013 42 6 692 694
Ding G, Qin M, Zhou F. Comparative analysis of two methods of palliative treatment for hilar cholangiocarcinoma. Chongqing Med. 2013;42(6):692–4.
30. Zhang G Comparison of clinical effects of two palliative treatments for hilar cholangiocarcinoma J Qilu Nurs 2011 17 122 123
Zhang G. Comparison of clinical effects of two palliative treatments for hilar cholangiocarcinoma. J Qilu Nurs. 2011;17:122–3.
31. Walter T Ho CS Horgan AM Warkentin A Endoscopic or Percutaneous Biliary Drainage for Klatskin Tumors? Clin Stud 2013 24 113 121
Walter T, Ho CS, Horgan AM, Warkentin A. Endoscopic or percutaneous biliary drainage for Klatskin tumors? Clin Stud. 2013;24:113–21.
32. Zheng T Analyze the short-term effect of percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage in the treatment of hilar cholangiocarcinoma J Lab Med Clin Sci 2018 15 1774 1779
Zheng T. Analyze the short-term effect of percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage in the treatment of hilar cholangiocarcinoma. J Lab Med Clin Sci. 2018;15:1774–9.
33. Moole H Dharmapuri S Duvvuri A Dharmapuri S Boddireddy R Moole V Yedama P Bondalapati N Uppu A Yerasi C Endoscopic versus percutaneous biliary drainage in palliation of advanced malignant hilar obstruction: a meta-analysis and systematic review Can J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2016 2016 4726078 10.1155/2016/4726078 27648439
Moole H, Dharmapuri S, Duvvuri A, Dharmapuri S, Boddireddy R, Moole V, Yedama P, Bondalapati N, Uppu A, Yerasi C. Endoscopic versus percutaneous biliary drainage in palliation of advanced malignant hilar obstruction: a meta-analysis and systematic review. Can J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016;2016:4726078.27648439 10.1155/2016/4726078
34. Lin H Li S Liu X The safety and efficacy of nasobiliary drainage versus biliary stenting in malignant biliary obstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis Medicine (Baltim) 2016 95 46 e5253 10.1097/MD.0000000000005253
Lin H, Li S, Liu X. The safety and efficacy of nasobiliary drainage versus biliary stenting in malignant biliary obstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltim). 2016;95(46):e5253.10.1097/MD.0000000000005253
35. Van Eecke E Degroote H Vanlander A Hindryckx P Outcome of primary ERCP versus primary PTC for biliary drainage in malignant hilar biliary strictures: a systematic review and meta-analysis Surg Endosc 2022 36 10 7160 7170 10.1007/s00464-022-09413-5 35941311
Van Eecke E, Degroote H, Vanlander A, Hindryckx P. Outcome of primary ERCP versus primary PTC for biliary drainage in malignant hilar biliary strictures: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Surg Endosc. 2022;36(10):7160–70.35941311 10.1007/s00464-022-09413-5
