Radiology · 2003
Obstruction of the lacrimal system: treatment with a covered, retrievable, expandable nitinol stent versus a lacrimal polyurethane stent.
Клиническое исследованиеСравнительное исследованиеКонтролируемое клиническое исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Ko Gi-Young, Song Ho-Young, Seo Tae-Seok, Kim Tae-Hyung, Sung Kyu-Bo, Yoon Hyun-Ki
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To compare the clinical effectiveness of a covered nitinol stent with that of a polyurethane stent for treatment of lacrimal system obstructions.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A nitinol stent was knit from a single thread of 0.1-mm nitinol wire in a tubular configuration and was covered by dipping the stent into a polyurethane solution. The stent was 4 mm in diameter and 30 or 35 mm long. With fluoroscopic guidance, a covered nitinol stent (n = 33, group A) or a polyurethane stent (n = 35, group B) was placed in 68 patients. The following items were evaluated retrospectively: technical success, procedure time, cumulative patency rate, and complications. An unpaired Student t test was used to analyze the difference between the procedure times. Kaplan-Meier survival curves and a log-rank test were used to compare the cumulative patency rates.
RESULTS: Stent placement was technically successful in 31 (94%) of 33 patients in group A and in all 35 (100%) patients in group B. After stent placement, all patients showed resolution of epiphora. Average procedure time was 400 seconds (range, 270-900 seconds) in group A and 260 seconds (range, 150-900 seconds) in group B. The difference between the procedure times was statistically significant (P =.0003). During the mean follow-up period of 40 months, there was recurrence of epiphora in 30 of 31 patients in group A and 26 of 35 patients in group B. The difference of the cumulative patency rates was statistically insignificant (P =.2).
CONCLUSION: Although the polyurethane stent used for treatment seemed to be more effective than the nitinol stent, selection of these stents for placement should be made with caution, because the long-term patency rates are not encouraging.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A nitinol stent was knit from a single thread of 0.1-mm nitinol wire in a tubular configuration and was covered by dipping the stent into a polyurethane solution. The stent was 4 mm in diameter and 30 or 35 mm long. With fluoroscopic guidance, a covered nitinol stent (n = 33, group A) or a polyurethane stent (n = 35, group B) was placed in 68 patients. The following items were evaluated retrospectively: technical success, procedure time, cumulative patency rate, and complications. An unpaired Student t test was used to analyze the difference between the procedure times. Kaplan-Meier survival curves and a log-rank test were used to compare the cumulative patency rates.
RESULTS: Stent placement was technically successful in 31 (94%) of 33 patients in group A and in all 35 (100%) patients in group B. After stent placement, all patients showed resolution of epiphora. Average procedure time was 400 seconds (range, 270-900 seconds) in group A and 260 seconds (range, 150-900 seconds) in group B. The difference between the procedure times was statistically significant (P =.0003). During the mean follow-up period of 40 months, there was recurrence of epiphora in 30 of 31 patients in group A and 26 of 35 patients in group B. The difference of the cumulative patency rates was statistically insignificant (P =.2).
CONCLUSION: Although the polyurethane stent used for treatment seemed to be more effective than the nitinol stent, selection of these stents for placement should be made with caution, because the long-term patency rates are not encouraging.