ArticleAbdominal radiology (New York)2026
Bile duct dilatation as a key determinant of technical success and access-related challenges in percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage: a comprehensive single-center study.
Article in Abdominal radiology (New York), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo compare technical success, procedural metrics, and complication patterns of percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) in dilated versus nondilated biliary systems.
methodsThis retrospective single-center study included 440 PTBD procedures performed in 388 patients between October 2022 and June 2025. Patients undergoing concomitant biliary interventions or repeat attempts within 7 days were excluded. Biliary ductal status was determined using preprocedural CT and intraprocedural ultrasonography, with dilatation defined as a largest visible intrahepatic bile duct diameter > 2 mm. Procedural time was subdivided into an access phase (T1 time: from the first fluoroscopic image to cholangiography) and a catheter-placement phase (T2 time: from cholangiography to final catheter placement). Technical success, total procedure time, T1 and T2 times, fluoroscopy time, radiation dose, and complications graded according to CIRSE criteria were recorded. Comparative analyses were performed between dilated and nondilated ducts and subgroup evaluation was conducted within nondilated ducts for bile leakage versus other indications.
resultsPTBD was performed in 318 dilated and 122 nondilated ducts. Technical success was significantly lower in nondilated ducts (89.3% vs. 99.7%, p < 0.001). Nondilated procedures demonstrated prolonged total procedure time, longer T1 time, and greater fluoroscopy time and radiation exposure (all p < 0.001), while T2 duration remained similar. Overall complication rates were comparable; however, bleeding complications were more frequent in nondilated ducts (6.6% vs. 1.3%, p = 0.005). Cholangitis predominantly occurred in dilated ducts (6.0% vs. 0.8%, p = 0.019).
conclusionNondilated ducts pose greater technical difficulty and procedural burden during PTBD, reflected by lower success rates and increased bleeding risk, whereas dilated ducts have a higher propensity for cholangitis. Recognizing ductal status is essential for procedural planning and risk stratification.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41711879What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.