BACKGROUND/AIMS: Despite common use of stent-instent methods for endoscopic bilateral metal stenting in malignant hilar obstruction, the longevity of these stents and clinical outcomes of patients who receive them are less well known than for the side-by-side method. We aimed to compare treatment outcomes according to bilateral stenting method. METHODOLOGY: A total of 41 patients were divided into two groups: a bilateral side-by-side metal stenting group (side-by-side group, n=19) and a bilateral stent-in-stent metal stenting group (stent-in-stent group, n=22). RESULTS: During the study period, successful drainage was achieved in 15 of 19 patients (78.9%) with the side-by-side placement, which did not differ significantly from the proportion with the stent-in-stent placement (18 of 22 patients, 81.8%). The two groups did not differ significantly in rates of early complications (31.6% vs. 22.7%, p=0.725), late complications (36.8% vs. 50.0%, p=0.531) or death (47.4% vs. 54.5%, p=0.647). Comparing stent patency and survival curves according to bilateral stenting type, patients with stent-in-stent placement and those with side-by-side placement did not differ significantly (p=0.771 and p=0.769). CONCLUSIONS: Our results show no significant difference in clinical outcomes, including stent patency and overall survival, between side-by-side and stent-in-stent bilateral metal stenting in patients with malignant hilar obstruction.
BACKGROUND/AIMS: Despite common use of stent-instent methods for endoscopic bilateral metal stenting in malignant hilar obstruction, the longevity of these stents and clinical outcomes of patients who receive them are less well known than for the side-by-side method. We aimed to compare treatment outcomes according to bilateral stenting method. METHODOLOGY: A total of 41 patients were divided into two groups: a bilateral side-by-side metal stenting group (side-by-side group, n=19) and a bilateral stent-in-stent metal stenting group (stent-in-stent group, n=22). RESULTS: During the study period, successful drainage was achieved in 15 of 19 patients (78.9%) with the side-by-side placement, which did not differ significantly from the proportion with the stent-in-stent placement (18 of 22 patients, 81.8%). The two groups did not differ significantly in rates of early complications (31.6% vs. 22.7%, p=0.725), late complications (36.8% vs. 50.0%, p=0.531) or death (47.4% vs. 54.5%, p=0.647). Comparing stent patency and survival curves according to bilateral stenting type, patients with stent-in-stent placement and those with side-by-side placement did not differ significantly (p=0.771 and p=0.769). CONCLUSIONS: Our results show no significant difference in clinical outcomes, including stent patency and overall survival, between side-by-side and stent-in-stent bilateral metal stenting in patients with malignant hilar obstruction.
Authors: Min Jae Yang; Jin Hong Kim; Jae Chul Hwang; Byung Moo Yoo; Sang Hyub Lee; Ji Kon Ryu; Yong-Tae Kim; Sang Myung Woo; Woo Jin Lee; Seok Jeong; Don Haeng Lee Journal: Gut Liver Date: 2018-11-15 Impact factor: 4.519