Sung Ryul Shim1,2, Tae Hoon Lee3,4, Jae Kook Yang5, Jae Heon Kim2, Yun Nah Lee6, Sang-Woo Cha7, Jong Ho Moon6, Young Deok Cho7, Sang-Heum Park5. 1. Department of Preventive Medicine, Korea University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. 2. Department of Urology, Soonchunhyang University Seoul Hospital, SoonChunHyang University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. 3. Department of Internal Medicine, SoonChunHyang University School of Medicine, Cheonan, Korea. thlee9@schmc.ac.kr. 4. Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Cheonan Hospital, SoonChunHyang University School of Medicine, 31, Sooncheonhyang 6-gil, Dongnam-gu, Cheonan-si, Chungcheongnam-do, 31151, South Korea. thlee9@schmc.ac.kr. 5. Department of Internal Medicine, SoonChunHyang University School of Medicine, Cheonan, Korea. 6. Department of Internal Medicine, SoonChunHyang University School of Medicine, Bucheon, Korea. 7. Department of Internal Medicine, SoonChunHyang University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIM: There is no clear data to compare the effectiveness and safety of bilateral stent-in-stent (SIS) or stent-by-stent (SBS) deployment for advanced malignant hilar obstruction (MHO). This meta-analysis was done to investigate clinical outcomes of these deployment methods. METHODS: We did a literature search to identify studies that reported the clinical outcomes of bilateral metal stents in patients with advanced MHO. Weighed pooled rates (WPR) along with 95% confidence interval (95% CI) were calculated in order to compare outcomes including technical and clinical success, adverse events, and stent occlusion between the two groups. We conducted a meta-analysis using a random-effects model. RESULTS: Five comparative studies with 250 patients, and 20 single-arm studies for the SIS or SBS method were eligible for the meta-analysis and systematic review. The bilateral SIS deployment had a significantly higher technical success rate than did SBS deployment (OR 6.43; 95% CI 1.08-38.09). There was no difference in the clinical success (OR 1.23; 95% CI 0.45-3.38), overall adverse events rates (OR 0.42; 95% CI 0.15-1.18), or overall occlusion rate (OR 1.55; 95% CI 0.89-2.70). As a single-armed group, WPR of technical success of the SIS and SBS groups was 96.4% and 89.6%, respectively. Clinical success was 97.5% and 98.3%. Overall, adverse events were 35.9% and 22.6%. Occlusion rates were 27.7% and 37.7%. CONCLUSIONS: Although there was a lack of quality data and heterogeneity, bilateral SIS deployment had a higher technical feasibility than did the SBS method in patients with advanced MHO, without differences in terms of clinical success, adverse events, or occlusion rates.
BACKGROUND AND AIM: There is no clear data to compare the effectiveness and safety of bilateral stent-in-stent (SIS) or stent-by-stent (SBS) deployment for advanced malignant hilar obstruction (MHO). This meta-analysis was done to investigate clinical outcomes of these deployment methods. METHODS: We did a literature search to identify studies that reported the clinical outcomes of bilateral metal stents in patients with advanced MHO. Weighed pooled rates (WPR) along with 95% confidence interval (95% CI) were calculated in order to compare outcomes including technical and clinical success, adverse events, and stent occlusion between the two groups. We conducted a meta-analysis using a random-effects model. RESULTS: Five comparative studies with 250 patients, and 20 single-arm studies for the SIS or SBS method were eligible for the meta-analysis and systematic review. The bilateral SIS deployment had a significantly higher technical success rate than did SBS deployment (OR 6.43; 95% CI 1.08-38.09). There was no difference in the clinical success (OR 1.23; 95% CI 0.45-3.38), overall adverse events rates (OR 0.42; 95% CI 0.15-1.18), or overall occlusion rate (OR 1.55; 95% CI 0.89-2.70). As a single-armed group, WPR of technical success of the SIS and SBS groups was 96.4% and 89.6%, respectively. Clinical success was 97.5% and 98.3%. Overall, adverse events were 35.9% and 22.6%. Occlusion rates were 27.7% and 37.7%. CONCLUSIONS: Although there was a lack of quality data and heterogeneity, bilateral SIS deployment had a higher technical feasibility than did the SBS method in patients with advanced MHO, without differences in terms of clinical success, adverse events, or occlusion rates.
Authors: Jennifer Hsieh; Amar Thosani; Matthew Grunwald; Satish Nagula; Juan Carlos Bucobo; Jonathan M Buscaglia Journal: Hepatobiliary Surg Nutr Date: 2015-10 Impact factor: 7.293
Authors: Kwang Min Kim; Chang-Uk Jeong; Sang Goon Shim; Hong Jang; Yun Gyu Song; Tae Gyu Kim; Jun Ho Ji Journal: Niger J Clin Pract Date: 2018-09 Impact factor: 0.968