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.
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.
Authors: Do Hyun Park; Myung-Hwan Kim; Jung Sik Choi; Sang Soo Lee; Dong Wan Seo; Ji Hye Kim; Jimin Han; Jong Cheol Kim; Eun Kwang Choi; Sung Koo Lee Journal: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2006-05-22 Impact factor: 11.382
Authors: W Schima; R Prokesch; C Osterreicher; S Thurnher; R Függer; R Schöfl; L Havelec; J Lammer Journal: Clin Radiol Date: 1997-03 Impact factor: 2.350
Authors: H Isayama; Y Komatsu; T Tsujino; N Sasahira; K Hirano; N Toda; Y Nakai; N Yamamoto; M Tada; H Yoshida; Y Shiratori; T Kawabe; M Omata Journal: Gut Date: 2004-05 Impact factor: 23.059
Authors: T C Tham; D L Carr-Locke; J Vandervoort; R C Wong; D R Lichtenstein; J Van Dam; F Ruymann; S Chow; J J Bosco; T Qaseem; D Howell; D Pleskow; W Vannerman; E D Libby Journal: Gut Date: 1998-05 Impact factor: 23.059
Authors: Chan Gyoo Kim; Il Ju Choi; Jong Yeul Lee; Soo-Jeong Cho; Soo Jin Kim; Mi-Jung Kim; Sook Ryun Park; Young Lee Park Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2013-09-12 Impact factor: 4.584