-
Polski Przeglad Chirurgiczny Jun 2021An ongoing debate concerns the need for routine placement of prophylactic intra-abdominal drains following kidney transplantation. <br/><br/>Aim: We... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
An ongoing debate concerns the need for routine placement of prophylactic intra-abdominal drains following kidney transplantation. <br/><br/>Aim: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine whether such an approach brings any advantages in the prevention of perirenal transplant fluid collection, surgical site infection, lymphocele, hematoma, urinoma, wound dehiscence, graft loss, and need for reoperation. <br/><br/>Methods: We conducted a random-effects meta-analysis of non-randomized studies of intervention comparing drained and drain-free adult renal graft recipients regarding perirenal transplant fluid collection and other wound complications. ROBINS-I tool and funnel plot asymmetry analysis were used to assess the risk of bias. <br/><br/>Results: Five studies at moderate to critical risk of bias were included. A total of 2094 renal graft recipients were evaluated. Our analysis revealed no significant differences between drained and drain-free patients regarding perirenal transplant fluid collection (pooled odds ratio [OR], 0.77; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.28-2.17; I 2 = 72%), surgical site infection (OR, 1.64; 95% CI, 0.11-24.88; I 2 = 80%), lymphocele (OR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.02-15.27; I 2 = 0%), hematoma (OR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.12-3.99; I 2 = 71%), and wound dehiscence (OR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.21-2.70; I 2 = 0%). There was insufficient data concerning urinoma, graft loss, and need for reoperation. <br/><br/>Conclusions: The available evidence is weak. Our findings show that the use of intra-abdominal drains after kidney transplantation seems to have neither beneficial nor harmful effects on perirenal transplant fluid collection and other wound complications. The present study does not support the routine placement of surgical drains after kidney transplantation. <i>In this systematic review and meta-analysis we summarize the most up-to-date evidence for and against the routine use of intra-abdominal drain following renal transplantation.</i>.
Topics: Adult; Drainage; Hematoma; Humans; Kidney Transplantation; Reoperation; Surgical Wound Infection
PubMed: 34515654
DOI: 10.5604/01.3001.0014.9166 -
Annals of Palliative Medicine Sep 2021Surgery is the clinically preferred treatment for high perianal abscesses. Incision and seton drainage improve the cure rate and reduce recurrence. We aimed to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Surgery is the clinically preferred treatment for high perianal abscesses. Incision and seton drainage improve the cure rate and reduce recurrence. We aimed to systematically evaluate the clinical effect and safety of incision and seton drainage in the treatment of high perianal abscess.
METHODS
China Knowledge Network (CNKI), WanFang database, VIP database, PubMed, and Cochrane Library were searched and all relevant Chinese and English language documents until July 2021were retrieved. All records that described randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of incision and seton drainage for the treatment of high perianal abscess were eligible. Documents that met the inclusion criteria were evaluated for bias using the Cochrane Collaboration Risk Evaluation Standard, and Revman5.4 software was used to analyze the data.
RESULTS
Fourteen RCTs were included. The results of nine studies showed that the clinical cure rate of the incision-seton group was higher than that of the incision-drainage group (P<0.05). Seven studies showed that the wound healing time of the incision-seton group was shorter than that of the incision-drainage group (P<0.05). Four studies showed that the visual analogue scale (VAS) score of the incision-seton group was lower than that of the incision-drainage group (P<0.05). Five studies showed that the Wexner score of the incision-seton group was lower than that of the incision-drainage group (P<0.05). Six studies showed that the formation rate of anal fistula in the incision-seton group was lower than that in the incision-drainage group (P<0.05). Six studies demonstrated that the recurrence rate of abscess in the incision-seton group was lower than that in the incision-drainage group (P<0.05). Seven studies showed that the incidence of adverse events in the incision-seton group was lower than that in the incision-drainage group (P<0.05). Five studies demonstrated that the length of stay in the incision-seton group was shorter than that of the incision-drainage group (P<0.05).
DISCUSSION
The choice of surgical methods in clinical research has always been controversial. The incision-seton method can effectively and safely treat high perianal abscess. However, the results of this meta-analysis still leave some gaps in the evidence. More large-sample, high-quality, and multi-center RCTs are needed.
Topics: Abscess; Anus Diseases; Drainage; Humans; Rectal Fistula; Recurrence
PubMed: 34628909
DOI: 10.21037/apm-21-2229 -
Surgical Infections Jun 2022Splenic abscess (SA) is a rare, life-threatening illness that is generally treated with splenectomy. However, this is associated with high mortality and morbidity.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Splenic abscess (SA) is a rare, life-threatening illness that is generally treated with splenectomy. However, this is associated with high mortality and morbidity. Recently, percutaneous drainage (PD) has emerged as an alternative therapy in select patients. In this study, we compare mortality and complications in patients with SA treated with splenectomy versus PD. A systematic literature search of 13 databases and online search engines was conducted from 2019 to 2020. A bivariate generalized linear mixed model (BGLMM) was used to conduct a separate meta-analysis for both mortality and complications. We used the risk of bias in non-randomized studies of interventions (ROBINS-I) tool to evaluate risk of bias in non-randomized studies, and the Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach for assessing quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. Results were presented according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The review included 46 retrospective studies from 21 countries. For mortality rate, 27 studies compared splenectomy and PD whereas 10 used PD only and nine used splenectomy only. Data for major complications were available in 18 two-arm studies, seven single-arm studies with PD, and seven single-arm studies with splenectomy. Of a total of 589 patients, 288 were treated with splenectomy and 301 underwent PD. Mortality rate was 12% (95% confidence interval [CI], 8%-17%) in patients undergoing splenectomy compared with 8% (95% CI, 4%-13%) with PD. Complication rates were 26% (95% CI, 16%-37%) in the splenectomy group compared with 10% (95% CI, 4%-17%) in the PD group. Percutaneous drainage s associated with a trend toward lower complications and mortality rates compared with splenectomy in the treatment of SA, however, these findings were not statistically significant. Because of the heterogeneity of the data, further prospective studies are needed to draw definitive conclusions.
Topics: Abdominal Abscess; Abscess; Drainage; Humans; Intraabdominal Infections; Retrospective Studies; Splenectomy; Splenic Diseases
PubMed: 35612434
DOI: 10.1089/sur.2022.072 -
Journal of Vascular Surgery Apr 2022We conducted a systemic review and meta-analysis to compare the association between prophylactic cerebrospinal fluid drainage (CSFD) vs non-CSFD in preventing spinal... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Systematic review and meta-analysis of association of prophylactic cerebrospinal fluid drainage in preventing spinal cord ischemia after thoracic endovascular aortic repair.
OBJECTIVE
We conducted a systemic review and meta-analysis to compare the association between prophylactic cerebrospinal fluid drainage (CSFD) vs non-CSFD in preventing spinal cord ischemia (SCI) after thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for aneurysm and dissection.
METHODS
The MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases were systematically searched to identify all relevant studies reported before April 1, 2020. A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed. We assessed the association between CSFD strategies, including routine CSFD vs selective CSFD or no CSFD, and the SCI rates after TEVAR for patients with aortic dissection (AD), solitary thoracic aortic aneurysm (TAA), or thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm (TAAA). Subgroup analyses were conducted to assess the association between different aortic pathologies, including AD and thoracic aneurysms, and SCI rates after TEVAR with and without prophylactic CSFD. The data are presented as the pooled event rates (ERs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
RESULTS
A total of 34 studies of 3561 patients (2671 with TAA or TAAA and 890 with type B AD) were included in the present analysis. The data are presented as the pooled ERs and 95% CIs. The overall SCI rate for patients who had undergone TEVAR with prophylactic CSFD for AD (ER, 1.80%; 95% CI, 0.88%-2.72%) was significantly lower than that for the aortic aneurysm group (ER, 5.73%; 95% CI, 4.20%-7.27%; P < .0001). The SCI rate after TEVAR with prophylactic CSFD was not significantly different from that without CSFD for AD (P = .51). No association was found between the rates of SCI after TEVAR with routine prophylactic CSFD vs selective prophylactic CSFD for aortic aneurysms (P = .76) and AD (P = .70). The SCI rate after TEVAR without CSFD for aortic aneurysms, including isolated TAA and TAAA (ER, 3.49%; 95% CI, 0.23%-6.76%) was not significantly different from that for AD (ER, 3.20%; 95% CI, 0.00%-7.20%; P = .91). For the patients with TAAAs, the rate of SCI after TEVAR with routine prophylactic CSFD was significantly lower than that with selective prophylactic CSFD (P = .04).
CONCLUSIONS
Our systematic review and meta-analysis has shown that SCI occurs more often after TEVAR for aortic aneurysms than for AD. Routine prophylactic CSFD, compared with selective CSFD, was associated with a lower rate of postoperative SCI after TEVAR for TAAAs. No significant association was found between the SCI rate and routine prophylactic CSFD for patients undergoing TEVAR for isolated TAA or AD.
Topics: Aortic Dissection; Aortic Aneurysm; Aortic Aneurysm, Thoracic; Blood Vessel Prosthesis Implantation; Cerebrospinal Fluid Leak; Drainage; Endovascular Procedures; Humans; Retrospective Studies; Risk Factors; Spinal Cord Ischemia; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 34793925
DOI: 10.1016/j.jvs.2021.10.050 -
PloS One 2017The ideal invasive management as initial approach for pneumothorax (PTX) is still under debate. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to examine... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
The ideal invasive management as initial approach for pneumothorax (PTX) is still under debate. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to examine the evidence for the effectiveness of intercostal tube drainage and other various invasive methods as the initial approach to all subtypes of PTX in adults.
METHODS
Three databases were searched from inception to May 29, 2016: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane CENTRAL. Randomised controlled trials that evaluated intercostal tube drainage as the control and various invasive methods as the intervention for the initial approach to PTX in adults were included. The primary outcome was the early success rate of each method, and the risk ratios (RRs) were used for an effect size measure. The secondary outcomes were recurrence rate, hospitalization rate, hospital stay, and complications.
RESULTS
Seven studies met our inclusion criteria. Interventions were aspiration in six studies and catheterization connected to a one-way valve in one study. Meta-analyses were conducted for early success rate, recurrence rate, hospitalization rate, and hospital stay. Aspiration was inferior to intercostal tube drainage in terms of early success rate (RR = 0.82, confidence interval [CI] = 0.72 to 0.95, I2 = 0%). While aspiration and intercostal tube drainage showed no significant difference in the recurrence rate (RR = 0.84, CI = 0.57 to 1.23, I2 = 0%), aspiration had shorter hospital stay than intercostal tube drainage (mean difference = -1.73, CI = -2.33 to -1.13, I2 = 0%). Aspiration had lower hospitalization rate than intercostal tube drainage, but marked heterogeneity was present (RR = 0.38, CI = 0.19 to 0.76, I2 = 85%).
CONCLUSION
Aspiration was inferior to intercostal tube drainage in terms of early resolution, but it had shorter hospital stay. The recurrence rate of aspiration and intercostal tube drainage did not differ significantly. The efficacy of catheterization connected to a one-way valve was inconclusive because of the small number of relevant studies. (Registration of study protocol: PROSPERO, CRD42016037866).
Topics: Drainage; Humans; Length of Stay; Pneumothorax; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 28640890
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0178802 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2019Pleural infection, including parapneumonic effusions and thoracic empyema, may complicate lower respiratory tract infections. Standard treatment of these collections in... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Pleural infection, including parapneumonic effusions and thoracic empyema, may complicate lower respiratory tract infections. Standard treatment of these collections in adults involves antibiotic therapy, effective drainage of infected fluid and surgical intervention if conservative management fails. Intrapleural fibrinolytic agents such as streptokinase and alteplase have been hypothesised to improve fluid drainage in complicated parapneumonic effusions and empyema and therefore improve treatment outcomes and prevent the need for thoracic surgical intervention. Intrapleural fibrinolytic agents have been used in combination with DNase, but this is beyond the scope of this review.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the benefits and harms of adding intrapleural fibrinolytic therapy to standard conservative therapy (intercostal catheter drainage and antibiotic therapy) in the treatment of complicated parapneumonic effusions and empyema.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO) trials portal. We contacted trial authors for further information and requested details regarding the possibility of unpublished trials. The most recent search was conducted on 28 August 2019.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Parallel-group randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in adult patients with post-pneumonic empyema or complicated parapneumonic effusions (excluding tuberculous effusions) who had not had prior surgical intervention or trauma comparing an intrapleural fibrinolytic agent (streptokinase, alteplase or urokinase) versus placebo or a comparison of two fibrinolytic agents.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently extracted data. We contacted study authors for further information. We used odds ratios (OR) for dichotomous data and reported 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used Cochrane's standard methodological procedures of meta-analysis. We applied the GRADE approach to summarise results and to assess the overall certainty of evidence.
MAIN RESULTS
We included in this review a total of 12 RCTs. Ten studies assessed fibrinolytic agents versus placebo (993 participants); one study compared streptokinase with urokinase (50 participants); and one compared alteplase versus urokinase (99 participants). The primary outcomes were death, requirement for surgical intervention, overall treatment failure and serious adverse effects. All studies were in the inpatient setting. Outcomes were measured at varying time points from hospital discharge to three months. Seven trials were at low or unclear risk of bias and two at high risk of bias due to inadequate randomisation and inappropriate study design respectively. We found no evidence of difference in overall mortality with fibrinolytic versus placebo (OR 1.16, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.91; 8 studies, 867 participants; I² = 0%; moderate certainty of evidence). We found evidence of a reduction in surgical intervention with fibrinolysis in the same studies (OR 0.37, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.68; 8 studies, 897 participants; I² = 51%; low certainty of evidence); and overall treatment failure (OR 0.16, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.58; 7 studies, 769 participants; I² = 88%; very low certainty of evidence, with evidence of significant heterogeneity). We found no clear evidence of an increase in adverse effects with intrapleural fibrinolysis, although this cannot be excluded (OR 1.28, 95% CI 0.36 to 4.57; low certainty of evidence). In a sensitivity analysis, the reduction in referrals for surgery and overall treatment failure with fibrinolysis disappeared when the analysis was confined to studies at low or unclear risk of bias. In a moderate-risk population (baseline 14% risk of death, 20% risk of surgery, 27% risk of treatment failure), intra-pleural fibrinolysis leads to 19 more deaths (36 fewer to 59 more), 115 fewer surgical interventions (150 fewer to 55 fewer) and 214 fewer overall treatment failures (252 fewer to 93 fewer) per 1000 people. A single study of streptokinase versus urokinase found no clear difference between the treatments for requirement for surgery (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.13 to 7.72; 50 participants; low-certainty evidence). A single study of alteplase versus urokinase showed no clear difference in requirement for surgery (OR alteplase versus urokinase 0.46, 95% CI 0.04 to 5.24) but an increased rate of adverse effects, primarily bleeding, with alteplase (OR 5.61, 95% CI 1.16 to 27.11; 99 participants; low-certainty evidence). This translated into 154 (6 to 499 more) serious adverse events with alteplase compared with urokinase per 1000 people treated.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
In patients with complicated infective pleural effusion or empyema, intrapleural fibrinolytic therapy was associated with a reduction in the requirement for surgical intervention and overall treatment failure but with no evidence of change in mortality. Discordance between the negative largest trial of this therapy and other studies is of concern, however, as is an absence of significant effect when analysing low risk of bias trials only. The reasons for this difference are uncertain but may include publication bias. Intrapleural fibrinolytics may increase the rate of serious adverse events, but the evidence is insufficient to confirm or exclude this possibility.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Drainage; Empyema, Pleural; Fibrinolytic Agents; Humans; Pleural Effusion; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Streptokinase; Thrombolytic Therapy; Tissue Plasminogen Activator; Urokinase-Type Plasminogen Activator
PubMed: 31684683
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002312.pub4 -
World Journal of Gastrointestinal... Mar 2016To perform a systematic review comparing the outcomes of endoscopic, percutaneous and surgical pancreatic pseudocyst drainage.
AIM
To perform a systematic review comparing the outcomes of endoscopic, percutaneous and surgical pancreatic pseudocyst drainage.
METHODS
Comparative studies published between January 1980 and May 2014 were identified on PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane controlled trials register and assessed for suitability of inclusion. The primary outcome was the treatment success rate. Secondary outcomes included were the recurrence rates, re-interventions, length of hospital stay, adverse events and mortalities.
RESULTS
Ten comparative studies were identified and 3 were randomized controlled trials. Four studies reported on the outcomes of percutaneous and surgical drainage. Based on a large-scale national study, surgical drainage appeared to reduce mortality and adverse events rate as compared to the percutaneous approach. Three studies reported on the outcomes of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) and surgical drainage. Clinical success and adverse events rates appeared to be comparable but the EUS approach reduced hospital stay, cost and improved quality of life. Three other studies compared EUS and esophagogastroduodenoscopy-guided drainage. Both approaches were feasible for pseudocyst drainage but the success rate of the EUS approach was better for non-bulging cyst and the approach conferred additional safety benefits.
CONCLUSION
In patients with unfavorable anatomy, surgical cystojejunostomy or percutaneous drainage could be considered. Large randomized studies with current definitions of pseudocysts and longer-term follow-up are needed to assess the efficacy of the various modalities.
PubMed: 27014427
DOI: 10.4253/wjge.v8.i6.310 -
Surgical Endoscopy Jan 2024Postoperative pancreatic fluid collections (POPFCs) are common adverse events (AEs) after pancreatic surgery and may need interventions. Endoscopic ultrasound... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Postoperative pancreatic fluid collections (POPFCs) are common adverse events (AEs) after pancreatic surgery and may need interventions. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided drainage for POPFCs is increasingly reported, but its appropriate timing has not been fully elucidated. The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate treatment outcomes of POPFCs according to the timing of EUS-guided drainage.
METHODS
Using PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane database, we identified clinical studies published until December 2022 with data comparing outcomes of early and delayed EUS-guided drainage for POPFCs. We pooled data on AEs, mortality, and technical and clinical success rates, using the random-effects model.
RESULTS
From 1415 papers identified in the initial literature search, we identified 6 retrospective studies, including 128 and 107 patients undergoing early and delayed EUS-guided drainage for POPFCs. The threshold of early and delayed drainage ranged from 14 to 30 days. Distal pancreatectomy was the major cause of POPFCs, ranging from 44 to 100%. The pooled odds ratio (OR) for AEs was 0.81 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.40-1.64, P = 0.55) comparing early to delayed drainage. There was no procedure-related mortality. Technical success was achieved in all cases and a pooled OR of clinical success was 0.60 (95% CI 0.20-1.83, P = 0.37).
CONCLUSION
POPFCs can be managed by early EUS-guided drainage without an increase in AEs.
Topics: Humans; Retrospective Studies; Endosonography; Pancreatic Diseases; Pancreatectomy; Drainage; Ultrasonography, Interventional; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 38017158
DOI: 10.1007/s00464-023-10568-y -
Medicine Oct 2017The operative treatment combined with preoperative biliary drainage (PBD) has been established as a safe Klatskin tumor (KT) treatment strategy. However, there has... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The operative treatment combined with preoperative biliary drainage (PBD) has been established as a safe Klatskin tumor (KT) treatment strategy. However, there has always been a dispute for the preferred technique for PBD technique. This meta-analysis was conducted to compare the biliary drainage-related cholangitis, pancreatitis, hemorrhage, and the success rates of palliative relief of cholestasis between percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) and endoscopic biliary drainage (EBD), to identify the best technique in the management of KT.PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science were searched systematically for prospective or retrospective studies reporting the biliary drainage-related cholangitis, pancreatitis, hemorrhage, and the success rates of palliative relief of cholestasis in patients with KT. A meta-analysis was performed, using the fixed or random-effect model, with Review Manager 5.3.PTBD was associated with lower risk of cholangitis (risk ratio [RR] = 0.49, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.36-0.67; P < .00001), particularly in patients with Bismuth-Corlette type II, III, IV KT (RR = 0.50, 95% CI: 0.33-0.77; P = .05). Compared with EBD, PTBD was also associated with a lower risk of pancreatitis (RR = 0.35, 95% CI: 0.17-0.69; P = 0.003) and with higher successful rates of palliative relief of cholestasis (RR = 1.20, 95% CI: 1.10-1.31; P < .0001). The incidence of hemorrhage was similar in these 2 groups (RR 1.29, 95% CI: 0.51-3.27; P = .59). The risk of biliary drainage-related cholangitis (RR = 1.96, 95% CI: 0.96-4.01; P = .06) and pancreatitis (RR = 1.62, 95% CI: 0.76-3.47; P = .21) was similar between endoscopic nasobiliary drainage groups and biliary stenting.In patients with type II or type III or IV KT who need to have PBD, PTBD should be performed as an initial method of biliary drainage in terms of reducing the incidence of procedure related cholangitis, pancreatitis, and improving the rates of palliative relief of cholestasis. Well-conducted randomized controlled trials with a universial criterion for PBD are required to confirm these findings.
Topics: Aged; Bile Duct Neoplasms; Bile Ducts; Biliary Tract Surgical Procedures; Cholangitis; Cholestasis; Drainage; Endoscopy; Female; Humans; Klatskin Tumor; Male; Middle Aged; Odds Ratio; Pancreatitis; Postoperative Complications; Preoperative Care; Stents
PubMed: 29069029
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000008372 -
Archives of Medical Science : AMS 2020Preoperative biliary drainage has been widely used to treat patients with malignant biliary obstruction. However, it is still unclear which method is more effective:... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Preoperative biliary drainage has been widely used to treat patients with malignant biliary obstruction. However, it is still unclear which method is more effective: internal drainage or external drainage. Thus, we carried out a meta-analysis to compare the safety and efficacy of the two drainage methods in treatment of malignant biliary obstruction in terms of preoperative and postoperative complications.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
We conducted a literature search of Medline, EMBASE, PubMed, Ovid journals and the Cochrane Library, and compared internal drainage and external drainage in malignant biliary obstruction patients. The pre- and postoperative complications, stent dysfunction rate and mortality were analyzed.
RESULTS
Ten published studies ( = 1464 patients) were included in this meta-analysis. We found that patients with malignant biliary obstruction who received external drainage showed reductions in the preoperative cholangitis rate (OR = 0.33, 95% CI: 0.24-0.44, < 0.00001), the incidence of stent dysfunction (OR = 0.41, 95% CI: 0.30-0.57, < 0.00001), and total morbidity (OR = 0.34, 95% CI: 0.23-0.50, < 0.00001) compared with patients who received internal drainage.
CONCLUSIONS
The current meta-analysis indicates that external drainage is better than internal drainage for malignant biliary obstruction in terms of the preoperative cholangitis rate, the incidence of stent dysfunction and total morbidity, etc. However, the findings need to be confirmed by randomized controlled trials.
PubMed: 32542075
DOI: 10.5114/aoms.2020.94160