TY - JOUR
T1 - Comparison of outcomes among secondary covered metallic, uncovered metallic, and plastic biliary stents in treating occluded primary metallic stents in malignant distal biliary obstruction
AU - Cho, Jae Hee
AU - Jeon, Tae Joo
AU - Park, Jeong Youp
AU - Kim, Hee Man
AU - Kim, Yoon Jae
AU - Park, Seung Woo
AU - Chung, Jae Bock
AU - Song, Si Young
AU - Bang, Seungmin
PY - 2011/2
Y1 - 2011/2
N2 - 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 uncoveredcovered SEMS), bare-SEMS (17 uncovered-uncovered SEMS), and plastic stent (3 covered-plastic; 8 uncoveredplastic). 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.
AB - 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 uncoveredcovered SEMS), bare-SEMS (17 uncovered-uncovered SEMS), and plastic stent (3 covered-plastic; 8 uncoveredplastic). 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.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=79954703778&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=79954703778&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1007/s00464-010-1196-6
DO - 10.1007/s00464-010-1196-6
M3 - Article
C2 - 20602138
AN - SCOPUS:79954703778
SN - 0930-2794
VL - 25
SP - 475
EP - 482
JO - Surgical endoscopy
JF - Surgical endoscopy
IS - 2
ER -