BACKGROUND/AIMS: Several studies have shown the usefulness of endoscopic nasogallbladder drainage (ENGBD) in patients with acute cholecystitis. However, the procedure is difficult, and factors that affect technical success have not yet been clarified. We conducted a prospective study to evaluate the technical feasibility, efficacy, and predictive factors for the technical success of ENGBD in patients with acute cholecystitis. METHODS: All patients with moderate or severe acute cholecystitis who were enrolled underwent ENGBD between April 2009 and April 2011. Patients with surgically altered anatomy or pancreatobiliary malignancies were excluded. The primary outcomes included technical success, clinical success, and complications. Factors that could affect the technical success were also examined. RESULTS: Of the 27 patients who underwent ENGBD during the study period, technical success was achieved in 21 (78%) and clinical improvement was achieved in 20 (95%). Early complications were encountered in four patients (15%). Gallbladder wall thickness (odds ratio [OR], 1.64; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.08 to 2.47) and age (OR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.35) were effective predictors of technical failure. CONCLUSIONS: ENGBD was effective in resolving acute cholecystitis; however, this modality was technically challenging and had a limited success rate. Because of technical difficulties, ENGBD should be reserved for limited indications.
Age Factors ; Aged ; Aged, 80 and over ; Cholecystitis, Acute/*surgery ; Drainage/*methods ; Endoscopy, Gastrointestinal/*methods ; Feasibility Studies ; Female ; Gallbladder/pathology/*surgery ; Humans ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Odds Ratio ; Postoperative Complications/epidemiology ; Prospective Studies ; Sphincterotomy, Endoscopic ; Treatment Outcome

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Several studies have shown the usefulness of endoscopic nasogallbladder drainage (ENGBD) in patients with acute cholecystitis. However, the procedure is difficult, and factors that affect technical success have not yet been clarified. We conducted a prospective study to evaluate the technical feasibility, efficacy, and predictive factors for the technical success of ENGBD in patients with acute cholecystitis. METHODS: All patients with moderate or severe acute cholecystitis who were enrolled underwent ENGBD between April 2009 and April 2011. Patients with surgically altered anatomy or pancreatobiliary malignancies were excluded. The primary outcomes included technical success, clinical success, and complications. Factors that could affect the technical success were also examined. RESULTS: Of the 27 patients who underwent ENGBD during the study period, technical success was achieved in 21 (78%) and clinical improvement was achieved in 20 (95%). Early complications were encountered in four patients (15%). Gallbladder wall thickness (odds ratio [OR], 1.64; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.08 to 2.47) and age (OR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.35) were effective predictors of technical failure. CONCLUSIONS: ENGBD was effective in resolving acute cholecystitis; however, this modality was technically challenging and had a limited success rate. Because of technical difficulties, ENGBD should be reserved for limited indications.
Age Factors ; Aged ; Aged, 80 and over ; Cholecystitis, Acute/*surgery ; Drainage/*methods ; Endoscopy, Gastrointestinal/*methods ; Feasibility Studies ; Female ; Gallbladder/pathology/*surgery ; Humans ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Odds Ratio ; Postoperative Complications/epidemiology ; Prospective Studies ; Sphincterotomy, Endoscopic ; Treatment Outcome

Neoadjuvant chemotherapyeoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NAC/NACRT) can be performed in patients with pancreatic cancer to improve survival. We aimed to clarify the clinical outcomes of biliary drainage with a metal stent (MS) or a plastic stent (PS) during NAC/NACRT. Between October 2013 and April 2016, 96 patients with pancreatic cancer were registered for NAC/NACRT. Of these, 29 patients who underwent biliary drainage with MS or PS before NAC/NACRT and a subsequent pancreatoduodenectomy were retrospectively analyzed with regard to patient characteristics, preoperative recurrent biliary obstruction rate, NAC/NACRT delay or discontinuation rate, and operative characteristics. The median age of the patients was 67 years. NAC and NACRT were performed in 14 and 15 patients, respectively, and MS and PS were used in 17 and 12 patients, respectively. Recurrent biliary obstruction occurred in 6% and 83% of the patients in the MS and PS groups, respectively (p<0.001). NAC/NACRT delay was observed in 35% and 50% of the patients in the MS and PS groups, respectively (p=0.680). NAC/NACRT discontinuation was observed in 12% and 17% of the patients in the MS and PS groups, respectively (p=1.000). The operative time in the MS group tended to be longer than that in the PS group (625 minutes vs 497 minutes, p=0.051), and the operative blood loss volumes and postoperative adverse event rates were not different between the two groups. MS was better than PS from the viewpoint of preventing recurrent biliary obstruction, although MS was similar to PS with regards to perioperative outcomes.

The Japanese Society of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Surgery launched the clinical practice guidelines for the management of biliary tract cancers (cholangiocarcinoma, gallbladder cancer, and ampullary cancer) in 2007, then published the 2nd version in 2014. In this 3rd version, clinical questions (CQs) were proposed on six topics. The recommendation, grade for recommendation, and statement for each CQ were discussed and finalized by an evidence-based approach. Recommendations were graded as grade 1 (strong) or grade 2 (weak) according to the concepts of the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation system. The 31 CQs covered the six topics: (1) prophylactic treatment, (2) diagnosis, (3) biliary drainage, (4) surgical treatment, (5) chemotherapy, and (6) radiation therapy. In the 31 CQs, 14 recommendations were rated strong and 14 recommendations weak. The remaining three CQs had no recommendation. Each CQ includes a statement of how the recommendations were graded. This latest guideline provides recommendations for important clinical aspects based on evidence. Future collaboration with the cancer registry will be key for assessing the guidelines and establishing new evidence.