Purpose: To investigate the impact of the different access for percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) in terms of “Quality of Life” (QoL) in the management of malignant obstructive jaundice. Methods: In this IRB-approved study, 64 consecutive patients with malignant obstructive jaundice were prospectively randomized to the right (group A) or left access (group B) for PTBD between February 2017 and December 2018. In order to demonstrate differences in terms of QoL between these groups, patients were asked to complete the “EORTC QLQ-BIL21” questionnaire the week after the treatment. Continuous variables were summarized by mean ± SD and compared using a Mann–Whitney U test. Results: Percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainages were performed through right access in 31 cases and 33 cases through left access. Technical success was achieved in all cases (100%). During 1 week’s follow-up, there was a significant difference between group A and B in terms of pain (p < 0.001). Group A showed higher intercostal pain and respiratory difficulties compared to group B. Moreover, patients of group A showed a higher level of tiredness, anxiety, and more difficult tubes drainage and bags management than group B patients. Conclusion: In our experience, the use of the questionnaires showed the right access is associated with intercostal pain and respiratory difficulties. Left access for PTBD provides a better Quality of Life for patients who underwent PTBD as palliative treatment for the management of malignant obstructive jaundice and could be considered as the approach of choice in case of distal obstruction.

Health-Related Quality of Life evaluation in “left” versus “right” access for percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage using EORTC QLQBIL-21 questionnaire: a randomized controlled trial

Castiglione D.;Gozzo C.;Mammino L.;Palmucci S.;Basile A.
2020-01-01

Abstract

Purpose: To investigate the impact of the different access for percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) in terms of “Quality of Life” (QoL) in the management of malignant obstructive jaundice. Methods: In this IRB-approved study, 64 consecutive patients with malignant obstructive jaundice were prospectively randomized to the right (group A) or left access (group B) for PTBD between February 2017 and December 2018. In order to demonstrate differences in terms of QoL between these groups, patients were asked to complete the “EORTC QLQ-BIL21” questionnaire the week after the treatment. Continuous variables were summarized by mean ± SD and compared using a Mann–Whitney U test. Results: Percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainages were performed through right access in 31 cases and 33 cases through left access. Technical success was achieved in all cases (100%). During 1 week’s follow-up, there was a significant difference between group A and B in terms of pain (p < 0.001). Group A showed higher intercostal pain and respiratory difficulties compared to group B. Moreover, patients of group A showed a higher level of tiredness, anxiety, and more difficult tubes drainage and bags management than group B patients. Conclusion: In our experience, the use of the questionnaires showed the right access is associated with intercostal pain and respiratory difficulties. Left access for PTBD provides a better Quality of Life for patients who underwent PTBD as palliative treatment for the management of malignant obstructive jaundice and could be considered as the approach of choice in case of distal obstruction.
2020
Biliary interventions
Interventional radiology
Jaundice
Pain
Palliative care
Quality of Life
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
Castiglione D.pdf

solo gestori archivio

Tipologia: Versione Editoriale (PDF)
Dimensione 926 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
926 kB Adobe PDF   Visualizza/Apri

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11769/485449
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 3
  • Scopus 11
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 10
social impact