Aim: To determine whether the risk of bleeding complications in percutaneous biliary drainage is higher in adults whose hemostasis cannot be corrected before the procedure than in those whose hemostasis is corrected.
Material and Method: 62 patients who underwent percutaneous biliary drainage were included in the study. Patients with abnormal hemostasis were divided into those with corrected hemostasis (group I) and uncorrected hemostasis (group II). The groups were evaluated for the presence of bleeding complications by ultrasonography, computed tomography and laboratory findings. The groups were compared in terms of age, gender, side, drainage type, and bleeding complications.
Results: Of the 62 patients included in the study, 52% (n:32) were female and 48% (n:30) were male, with a mean age of 67.6±9.6 (48-90). Age and female sex ratio were higher in Group II, which was statistically significant (p<0.001, p:0.014). There was no statistically significant difference between the groups in terms of side. Internal drainage was applied to patients in group II at a higher rate than group I. There was a statistically significant difference between the groups in terms of drainage type (p:0.002). There were bleeding complications in 19.3% (n:12) of the patients. Bleeding rate was higher in group II (31.8%) compared to group I (12.5%), and there was no statistically significant difference between the groups (p:0.094). None of the patients required surgical treatment due to bleeding and mortality did not occur.
Conclusion: In patients with abnormal hemostasis requiring percutaneous biliary drainage, the rate of bleeding complications was higher in patients whose hemostasis was not corrected than in those with corrected hemostasis.
Primary Language | English |
---|---|
Subjects | Health Care Administration |
Journal Section | Research Articles |
Authors | |
Publication Date | January 24, 2022 |
Published in Issue | Year 2022 |
TR DİZİN ULAKBİM and International Indexes (1b)
Interuniversity Board (UAK) Equivalency: Article published in Ulakbim TR Index journal [10 POINTS], and Article published in other (excuding 1a, b, c) international indexed journal (1d) [5 POINTS]
Note: Our journal is not WOS indexed and therefore is not classified as Q.
You can download Council of Higher Education (CoHG) [Yüksek Öğretim Kurumu (YÖK)] Criteria) decisions about predatory/questionable journals and the author's clarification text and journal charge policy from your browser. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/journal/3449/file/4924/show
Journal Indexes and Platforms:
TR Dizin ULAKBİM, Google Scholar, Crossref, Worldcat (OCLC), DRJI, EuroPub, OpenAIRE, Turkiye Citation Index, Turk Medline, ROAD, ICI World of Journal's, Index Copernicus, ASOS Index, General Impact Factor, Scilit.The indexes of the journal's are;
The platforms of the journal's are;
The indexes/platforms of the journal are;
TR Dizin Ulakbim, Crossref (DOI), Google Scholar, EuroPub, Directory of Research Journal İndexing (DRJI), Worldcat (OCLC), OpenAIRE, ASOS Index, ROAD, Turkiye Citation Index, ICI World of Journal's, Index Copernicus, Turk Medline, General Impact Factor, Scilit
EBSCO, DOAJ, OAJI is under evaluation.
Journal articles are evaluated as "Double-Blind Peer Review"