| Literature DB >> 29018481 |
João Guilherme G Cabral1, Eloy Taglieri1, Adriane Pelosof1, Daniel Rosendo1, José Celso Ardengh2,3.
Abstract
This paper presents a retrospective comparison of plastic versus metallic stents in the drainage of malignant distal biliary obstructions. We compared single plastic stents (SPS), multiple plastic stents (MPS), and metallic stents (SEMS) regarding clinical decrease of TB < 2.0 mg/dL, long-term patency, and adverse event. 58 patients (38 women) with MDBO were included. Diagnoses were 44 pancreatic adenocarcinoma (74.6%), 9 metastasis (15.5%), 3 pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (5.1%), and 2 adenocarcinoma in the major papilla (3.4%). The number of patients included in the SPS, MPS, and SEMS was 17, 6, and 35, respectively. Comparing the survival curves with respect to obstruction, we observed a lower mean permeability of the SPS compared to that of the MPS with p < 0.003 and of the SEMS group (p < 0.01). There was no statistical difference between the use of MPS, despite the small number of patients compared to the use of SEMS (p < 0.13) to reach the satisfactory levels of bilirubin.Entities:
Year: 2017 PMID: 29018481 PMCID: PMC5606050 DOI: 10.1155/2017/7621821
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Gastroenterol Res Pract ISSN: 1687-6121 Impact factor: 2.260
Demographic findings of the patients and the etiological cause of MDBO.
| Demographic findings | G1 (SPS) | G2 (MPS) | G3 (SEMS) | Total |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number of patients | 17 | 6 | 35 | 58 | — |
| Mean age | 59.35 (15.51) | 67.3 (4.59) | 67.04 (10.28) | 0.23 | |
| Gender (M/F) | 8/9 | 2/4 | 10/15 | 0.99 | |
| Type of obstruction | — | — | — | — | — |
| Pancreatic cancer | 11 | 4 | 29 | 44 | 0.52 |
| Neuroendocrine tumor | 2 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 0.46 |
| Papillary carcinoma | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0.99 |
| Metastasis | — | — | — | — | — |
| Colon | 2 | 1 | 2 | 5 | 0.46 |
| Lung | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.99 |
| Kidney | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.99 |
| Rhabdomyosarcoma | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0.36 |
| Ovary | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0.36 |
Cross tabulation comparing therapeutic success between groups (p < 0.093).
| TB ≤ 2 mg/dL | Yes (%) | No (%) | Total (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| G1 (SPS) | 7 (19.4) | 10 (45.5) | 17 (29.3) |
| G2 (MPS) | 5 (13.9) | 1 (4.5) | 6 (10.3) |
| G3 (SEMS) | 24 (66.7) | 11 (50) | 35 (60.3) |
| Total | 36 | 22 | 58 |
Figure 1Comparison of the permeability time of patients undergoing SPS and MPS insertion (p < 0.001).
Figure 2Comparison of the permeability time of patients undergoing SPS and SEMS insertion (p < 0.001).
Figure 3Comparison of the permeability time of patients undergoing MPS and SEMS insertion (p = 0.13).
Figure 4Comparison among the three groups in relation to the time in days to reach TB ≤ 2.0 mg/dL.