Surgical endoscopy · 2010
Comparison of outcomes among secondary covered metallic, uncovered metallic, and plastic biliary stents in treating occluded primary metallic stents in malignant distal biliary obstruction.
Сравнительное 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.
Cho Jae Hee, Jeon Tae Joo, Park Jeong Youp, Kim Hee Man, Kim Yoon Jae, Park Seung Woo, Chung Jae Bock, Song Si Young, Bang Seungmin
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The self-expandable metallic stent (SEMS) has been widely used for unresectable malignant biliary obstruction but eventually becomes occluded by tumor ingrowth/overgrowth and sludge. Therefore, we aimed to determine the therapeutic effectiveness of secondary stents and to find differences according to various combinations of the first and second stents for the management of occluded SEMSs in patients with malignant distal biliary obstruction.
METHODS: Between 1999 and November 2008, 77 patients with malignant biliary obstruction underwent secondary biliary stent placement as "stent-in-stent" at three university hospitals in Korea (40 covered, 26 uncovered, and 11 plastic stents). The membrane of the covered SEMS was regarded as the barrier against tumor ingrowth. We categorized the patients into three groups based on whether the covered SEMS was either the first or the second stent: membrane-SEMS (18 covered-covered; 9 covered-uncovered; 22 uncovered-covered SEMS), bare-SEMS (17 uncovered-uncovered SEMS), and plastic stent (3 covered-plastic; 8 uncovered-plastic).
RESULTS: The median patency of second stents was 138, 109, and 88 days (covered, uncovered, and plastic stents). The second covered SEMSs had a significantly longer patency than plastic stents (p=0.047). In a multivariate analysis including membrane-SEMS, bare-SEMS, and plastic stent groups, the bare-SEMS had a worse cumulative stent patency (HR=2.04, CI=1.08-3.86) and survival time (HR=2.37, CI=1.25-4.49) than the membrane-SEMS. Patients with ampulla of Vater cancer had better stent patency (HR=0.27, CI=0.08-0.98) and survival (HR=0.17, CI=0.04-0.77) than those with other pancreatobiliary malignancies. In addition, antitumor treatment prolonged survival time (HR=0.50, CI=0.26-0.99).
CONCLUSIONS: The placement of additional biliary stents using the "stent-in-stent" method is an effective treatment for an occluded metallic primary stent. In addition, double biliary SEMS placement using at least one covered SEMS (in the primary and/or secondary procedure) might provide longer cumulative stent patency and survival than using uncovered SEMSs in both procedures.
METHODS: Between 1999 and November 2008, 77 patients with malignant biliary obstruction underwent secondary biliary stent placement as "stent-in-stent" at three university hospitals in Korea (40 covered, 26 uncovered, and 11 plastic stents). The membrane of the covered SEMS was regarded as the barrier against tumor ingrowth. We categorized the patients into three groups based on whether the covered SEMS was either the first or the second stent: membrane-SEMS (18 covered-covered; 9 covered-uncovered; 22 uncovered-covered SEMS), bare-SEMS (17 uncovered-uncovered SEMS), and plastic stent (3 covered-plastic; 8 uncovered-plastic).
RESULTS: The median patency of second stents was 138, 109, and 88 days (covered, uncovered, and plastic stents). The second covered SEMSs had a significantly longer patency than plastic stents (p=0.047). In a multivariate analysis including membrane-SEMS, bare-SEMS, and plastic stent groups, the bare-SEMS had a worse cumulative stent patency (HR=2.04, CI=1.08-3.86) and survival time (HR=2.37, CI=1.25-4.49) than the membrane-SEMS. Patients with ampulla of Vater cancer had better stent patency (HR=0.27, CI=0.08-0.98) and survival (HR=0.17, CI=0.04-0.77) than those with other pancreatobiliary malignancies. In addition, antitumor treatment prolonged survival time (HR=0.50, CI=0.26-0.99).
CONCLUSIONS: The placement of additional biliary stents using the "stent-in-stent" method is an effective treatment for an occluded metallic primary stent. In addition, double biliary SEMS placement using at least one covered SEMS (in the primary and/or secondary procedure) might provide longer cumulative stent patency and survival than using uncovered SEMSs in both procedures.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
AgedAged, 80 and overBiliary Tract NeoplasmsCholestasis, IntrahepaticCoated Materials, BiocompatibleCohort StudiesFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansKaplan-Meier EstimateMetalsMiddle AgedNeoplasm StagingPalliative CarePlasticsProportional Hazards ModelsProsthesis DesignProsthesis FailureProsthesis ImplantationReoperationRetrospective StudiesRisk AssessmentStentsSurvival AnalysisTime FactorsTreatment Outcome