Conversion of endoscopic nasobiliary drainage into internal drainage versus endoscopic biliary stenting for benign biliary obstruction: a retrospective propensity score-matched comparative study.

IF 3.8 3区 医学 Q1 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY
Therapeutic Advances in Gastroenterology Pub Date : 2026-05-22 eCollection Date: 2026-01-01 DOI:10.1177/17562848261451341
Yan Zhao, Yongqiu Wei, Junxiong Wang, Can Sun, Wenkun Li, Yongjun Wang, Peng Li, Wenhai Wang
{"title":"Conversion of endoscopic nasobiliary drainage into internal drainage versus endoscopic biliary stenting for benign biliary obstruction: a retrospective propensity score-matched comparative study.","authors":"Yan Zhao, Yongqiu Wei, Junxiong Wang, Can Sun, Wenkun Li, Yongjun Wang, Peng Li, Wenhai Wang","doi":"10.1177/17562848261451341","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Endoscopic nasobiliary drainage (ENBD) conversion to internal drainage using scissor forceps is a specialized technique primarily explored in malignant obstructions. This study evaluates its efficacy, radiation safety, and long-term durability in patients with benign biliary obstruction (BBO) compared to conventional endoscopic retrograde biliary drainage (ERBD).</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To evaluate the efficacy, radiation safety, and long-term durability of scissor forceps conversion compared to conventional endoscopic retrograde biliary drainage (ERBD) in patients with BBO.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>A retrospective comparative study using 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We retrospectively analyzed BBO patients who underwent either scissor forceps conversion (Experimental group) or conventional ERBD (Control group) between 2018 and 2025. To ensure rigorous comparison, 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM) was performed, balancing baseline characteristics including age, etiology, and inflammatory markers. Primary endpoints were dose area product (DAP), fluoroscopy time, and long-term stent patency.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>After 1:1 matching (<i>n</i> = 43 per group), the experimental group demonstrated a significant reduction in radiation exposure and procedural duration. The mean DAP was substantially lower in the experimental group compared to the control group (<i>p</i> < 0.001), alongside a shorter total fluoroscopy time (<i>p</i> < 0.001). Although the early biochemical recovery showed a more favorable downward trend in total bilirubin for the experimental group, the difference was not statistically significant. Perioperative adverse events, including post-ERCP pancreatitis (4.65% vs 2.3%), were comparable, with all cases occurring prior to the conversion maneuver. During the follow-up, the experimental group exhibited a favorable trend toward sustained patency (Median Patency: Not Reached vs 13.0 months; <i>p</i> = 0.419).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In BBO management, converting ENBD to internal drainage significantly enhances radiation safety and procedural efficiency without compromising clinical safety or long-term stent durability. This \"mini-invasive\" approach aligns with the ALARA principle and represents a refined evidence-based strategy for patients requiring cumulative biliary interventions.</p>","PeriodicalId":48770,"journal":{"name":"Therapeutic Advances in Gastroenterology","volume":"19 ","pages":"17562848261451341"},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2026-05-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13198633/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Therapeutic Advances in Gastroenterology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17562848261451341","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Endoscopic nasobiliary drainage (ENBD) conversion to internal drainage using scissor forceps is a specialized technique primarily explored in malignant obstructions. This study evaluates its efficacy, radiation safety, and long-term durability in patients with benign biliary obstruction (BBO) compared to conventional endoscopic retrograde biliary drainage (ERBD).

Objectives: To evaluate the efficacy, radiation safety, and long-term durability of scissor forceps conversion compared to conventional endoscopic retrograde biliary drainage (ERBD) in patients with BBO.

Design: A retrospective comparative study using 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM).

Methods: We retrospectively analyzed BBO patients who underwent either scissor forceps conversion (Experimental group) or conventional ERBD (Control group) between 2018 and 2025. To ensure rigorous comparison, 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM) was performed, balancing baseline characteristics including age, etiology, and inflammatory markers. Primary endpoints were dose area product (DAP), fluoroscopy time, and long-term stent patency.

Results: After 1:1 matching (n = 43 per group), the experimental group demonstrated a significant reduction in radiation exposure and procedural duration. The mean DAP was substantially lower in the experimental group compared to the control group (p < 0.001), alongside a shorter total fluoroscopy time (p < 0.001). Although the early biochemical recovery showed a more favorable downward trend in total bilirubin for the experimental group, the difference was not statistically significant. Perioperative adverse events, including post-ERCP pancreatitis (4.65% vs 2.3%), were comparable, with all cases occurring prior to the conversion maneuver. During the follow-up, the experimental group exhibited a favorable trend toward sustained patency (Median Patency: Not Reached vs 13.0 months; p = 0.419).

Conclusion: In BBO management, converting ENBD to internal drainage significantly enhances radiation safety and procedural efficiency without compromising clinical safety or long-term stent durability. This "mini-invasive" approach aligns with the ALARA principle and represents a refined evidence-based strategy for patients requiring cumulative biliary interventions.

内镜下鼻胆道引流转换为内引流与内镜下胆道支架置入术治疗良性胆道梗阻:回顾性倾向评分匹配的比较研究。
背景:内镜下鼻胆道引流(ENBD)转化为剪刀钳内引流是一种主要探讨恶性梗阻的专业技术。本研究评估其在良性胆道梗阻(BBO)患者中的疗效、放射安全性和长期耐久性,并与传统的内镜逆行胆道引流(ERBD)进行比较。目的:评价剪刀钳转换与传统内镜下逆行胆道引流(ERBD)在BBO患者中的疗效、放射安全性和长期耐久性。设计:采用1:1倾向评分匹配(PSM)的回顾性比较研究。方法:回顾性分析2018年至2025年间接受剪刀钳转换(实验组)或常规ERBD(对照组)的BBO患者。为了确保严格的比较,进行了1:1的倾向评分匹配(PSM),平衡了基线特征,包括年龄、病因和炎症标志物。主要终点是剂量面积积(DAP)、透视时间和支架长期通畅。结果:经过1:1匹配(n = 43 /组),实验组的辐射暴露量和手术持续时间显著减少。实验组平均DAP显著低于对照组(p p p = 0.419)。结论:在BBO治疗中,将ENBD转换为内引流可显著提高放射安全性和手术效率,且不影响临床安全性或支架的长期耐久性。这种“微创”方法与ALARA原则一致,为需要累积胆道干预的患者提供了一种完善的循证策略。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Therapeutic Advances in Gastroenterology
Therapeutic Advances in Gastroenterology GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY-
CiteScore
6.70
自引率
2.40%
发文量
103
审稿时长
15 weeks
期刊介绍: Therapeutic Advances in Gastroenterology is an open access journal which delivers the highest quality peer-reviewed original research articles, reviews, and scholarly comment on pioneering efforts and innovative studies in the medical treatment of gastrointestinal and hepatic disorders. The journal has a strong clinical and pharmacological focus and is aimed at an international audience of clinicians and researchers in gastroenterology and related disciplines, providing an online forum for rapid dissemination of recent research and perspectives in this area. The editors welcome original research articles across all areas of gastroenterology and hepatology. The journal publishes original research articles and review articles primarily. Original research manuscripts may include laboratory, animal or human/clinical studies – all phases. Letters to the Editor and Case Reports will also be considered.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书