Literature DB >> 35536485

Enteral extended biliary stents versus conventional plastic biliary stents for the treatment of extrahepatic malignant biliary obstruction: a single-center prospective randomized controlled study.

Xiaofen Xu1, Yaopeng Zhang1, Wei Zheng1, Yingchun Wang1, Wei Yao1, Ke Li1, Xiue Yan2, Hong Chang3, Yonghui Huang4.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The main limitation of plastic stents is the relatively short stent patency due to occlusion. We designed enteral extended biliary stents with lengths of 26 cm (EEBS-26 cm) and 30 cm (EEBS-30 cm) to prolong stent patency. This study aimed to compare patency among EEBS-26 cm, EEBS-30 cm, and conventional plastic biliary stent (CPBS).
METHODS: A single-center prospective randomized controlled study was conducted. Eligible patients were randomized into the EEBS-26 cm, EEBS-30 cm, and CPBS groups, respectively. All patients were followed up every 3 months until stent occlusion, patient death, or at 12-month follow-up. The primary outcome was stent patency. The secondary outcomes included stent occlusion rate, patient survival, mortality, the rate of technical success, and adverse events.
RESULTS: Totally 117 patients were randomized into the three groups. There were no significant differences among the three groups in technical success rate, hospital stay, mortality, patient survival, and adverse events (P = 1.000, 0.553, 0.965, 0.302, and 0.427, respectively). Median stent patency durations in the EEBS-26 cm, EEBS-30 cm, and CPBS groups were 156.0 (95% CI 81.6-230.4) days, 81.0 (95% CI 67.9-94.1) days, and 68.0 (95% CI 20.0-116.0) days, respectively (P = 0.002). The EEBS-26 cm group had longer stent patency compared with the CPBS (P = 0.007) and EEBS-30 cm (P < 0.001) groups. The EEBS-26 cm group had lower stent occlusion rates compared with the other groups at 6 months (48.1% vs. 90.5% vs. 82.8%, P = 0.001) and 9 months (75.0% vs. 100.0% vs. 92.9%, P = 0.022).
CONCLUSION: EEBS-26 cm has prolonged stent patency and is safe and effective for the alleviation of unresectable extrahepatic malignant biliary obstruction.
© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Biliary stent; Duodenobiliary reflux; Extrahepatic; Malignant biliary obstruction; Stent patency

Year:  2022        PMID: 35536485     DOI: 10.1007/s00464-022-09265-z

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Surg Endosc        ISSN: 0930-2794            Impact factor:   4.584


  3 in total

1.  The Tannenbaum stent: a new plastic biliary stent without side holes.

Authors:  K F Binmoeller; U Seitz; H Seifert; F Thonke; S Sikka; N Soehendra
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  1995-10       Impact factor: 10.864

Review 2.  Covered Stents versus Uncovered Stents for Unresectable Malignant Biliary Strictures: A Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Ming-Yu Chen; Jia-Wei Lin; He-Pan Zhu; Bin Zhang; Guang-Yi Jiang; Pei-Jian Yan; Xiu-Jun Cai
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2016-03-16       Impact factor: 3.411

3.  Multicenter Randomized Trial of 10-French versus 11.5-French Plastic Stents for Malignant Biliary Obstruction.

Authors:  Mihir S Wagh; Mario de Bellis; Evan L Fogel; James T Frakes; John F Johanson; Tahir Qaseem; Douglas A Howell; Glen A Lehman; Stuart Sherman
Journal:  Diagn Ther Endosc       Date:  2013-05-02
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.