Comparison of an Inside Stent and a Fully Covered Self-Expandable Metallic Stent as Preoperative Biliary Drainage for Patients with Resectable Perihilar Cholangiocarcinoma.

IF 2.7 4区 医学 Q2 Medicine Canadian Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology Pub Date : 2022-07-05 eCollection Date: 2022-01-01 DOI:10.1155/2022/3005210
Hiroshi Mori, Hiroki Kawashima, Eizaburo Ohno, Takuya Ishikawa, Kentaro Yamao, Yasuyuki Mizutani, Tadashi Iida, Masanao Nakamura, Masatoshi Ishigami, Shunsuke Onoe, Takashi Mizuno, Tomoki Ebata, Mitsuhiro Fujishiro
{"title":"Comparison of an Inside Stent and a Fully Covered Self-Expandable Metallic Stent as Preoperative Biliary Drainage for Patients with Resectable Perihilar Cholangiocarcinoma.","authors":"Hiroshi Mori, Hiroki Kawashima, Eizaburo Ohno, Takuya Ishikawa, Kentaro Yamao, Yasuyuki Mizutani, Tadashi Iida, Masanao Nakamura, Masatoshi Ishigami, Shunsuke Onoe, Takashi Mizuno, Tomoki Ebata, Mitsuhiro Fujishiro","doi":"10.1155/2022/3005210","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>There is a need for a more tolerable preoperative biliary drainage (PBD) method for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (PHCC). In recent years, inside stents (ISs) have attracted attention as a less suffering PBD method. Few studies have compared IS with a fully covered self-expandable metallic stent (FCSEMS) as PBD for resectable PHCC. The aim of this study is to compare them.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study involved 86 consecutive patients (IS: 51; FCSEMS: 35). The recurrent biliary obstruction (RBO) rate until undergoing surgery or being diagnosed as unresectable, time to RBO, factors related to RBO, incidence of adverse events related to endoscopic retrograde cholangiography, and postoperative complications associated with each stent were evaluated retrospectively.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There was no significant difference between the two groups in the incidence of adverse events after stent insertion. After propensity score matching, the mean (SD) time to RBO was 37.9 (30.2) days in the IS group and 45.1 (35.1) days in the FCSEMS group, with no significant difference (<i>P</i>=0.912, log-rank test). A total of 7/51 patients in the IS group and 3/35 patients in the FCSEMS group developed RBO. The only risk factor for RBO was bile duct obstruction of the future excisional liver lobe(s) due to stenting (HR 29.8, <i>P</i>=0.008) in the FCSEMS group, but risk factors could not be indicated in the IS group. There was no significant difference in the incidence of bile leakage or liver failure. In contrast, pancreatic fistula was significantly more common in the FCSEMS group (13/23 patients) than in the IS group (3/28 patients) (<i>P</i> < 0.001), especially in patients who did not undergo pancreatectomy (<i>P</i>=0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>As PBD, both IS and FCSEMS achieved low RBO rates. Compared with FCSEMS, IS shows no difference in RBO rate, is associated with fewer postoperative complications, and is considered an appropriate means of PBD for resectable PHCC. This trail is registered with UMIN000025631.</p>","PeriodicalId":48755,"journal":{"name":"Canadian Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology","volume":" ","pages":"3005210"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9277217/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Canadian Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/3005210","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: There is a need for a more tolerable preoperative biliary drainage (PBD) method for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (PHCC). In recent years, inside stents (ISs) have attracted attention as a less suffering PBD method. Few studies have compared IS with a fully covered self-expandable metallic stent (FCSEMS) as PBD for resectable PHCC. The aim of this study is to compare them.

Methods: This study involved 86 consecutive patients (IS: 51; FCSEMS: 35). The recurrent biliary obstruction (RBO) rate until undergoing surgery or being diagnosed as unresectable, time to RBO, factors related to RBO, incidence of adverse events related to endoscopic retrograde cholangiography, and postoperative complications associated with each stent were evaluated retrospectively.

Results: There was no significant difference between the two groups in the incidence of adverse events after stent insertion. After propensity score matching, the mean (SD) time to RBO was 37.9 (30.2) days in the IS group and 45.1 (35.1) days in the FCSEMS group, with no significant difference (P=0.912, log-rank test). A total of 7/51 patients in the IS group and 3/35 patients in the FCSEMS group developed RBO. The only risk factor for RBO was bile duct obstruction of the future excisional liver lobe(s) due to stenting (HR 29.8, P=0.008) in the FCSEMS group, but risk factors could not be indicated in the IS group. There was no significant difference in the incidence of bile leakage or liver failure. In contrast, pancreatic fistula was significantly more common in the FCSEMS group (13/23 patients) than in the IS group (3/28 patients) (P < 0.001), especially in patients who did not undergo pancreatectomy (P=0.001).

Conclusions: As PBD, both IS and FCSEMS achieved low RBO rates. Compared with FCSEMS, IS shows no difference in RBO rate, is associated with fewer postoperative complications, and is considered an appropriate means of PBD for resectable PHCC. This trail is registered with UMIN000025631.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
内支架和全覆盖自膨胀金属支架作为可切除肝周胆管癌患者术前胆道引流的比较
背景:肝周胆管癌(PHCC)需要一种更耐受的术前胆道引流(PBD)方法。近年来,内支架(IS)作为一种痛苦较小的胆道引流(PBD)方法备受关注。很少有研究将内支架与全覆盖自膨胀金属支架(FCSEMS)作为可切除PHCC的PBD进行比较。本研究旨在对两者进行比较:本研究涉及 86 例连续患者(IS:51 例;FCSEMS:35 例)。回顾性评估了接受手术或被诊断为不可切除前的复发性胆道梗阻(RBO)率、RBO发生时间、RBO相关因素、内镜逆行胆管造影相关不良事件的发生率以及与每种支架相关的术后并发症:结果:两组患者在支架植入后的不良反应发生率无明显差异。经过倾向评分匹配后,IS组患者到达RBO的平均(标清)时间为37.9(30.2)天,FCSEMS组为45.1(35.1)天,两组无明显差异(P=0.912,log-rank检验)。IS组和FCSEMS组分别有7/51和3/35的患者出现了RBO。在FCSEMS组中,RBO的唯一风险因素是支架手术导致未来切除肝叶的胆管阻塞(HR 29.8,P=0.008),但在IS组中无法指出风险因素。胆汁渗漏或肝功能衰竭的发生率没有明显差异。相反,胰瘘在 FCSEMS 组(13/23 例)明显多于 IS 组(3/28 例)(P < 0.001),尤其是在未接受胰腺切除术的患者中(P=0.001):作为 PBD,IS 和 FCSEMS 的 RBO 率都很低。与 FCSEMS 相比,IS 的 RBO 率没有差异,术后并发症较少,被认为是可切除 PHCC 的合适 PBD 方法。本研究已在 UMIN000025631 注册。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
37 weeks
期刊介绍: Canadian Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology is a peer-reviewed, open access journal that publishes original research articles, review articles, and clinical studies in all areas of gastroenterology and liver disease - medicine and surgery. The Canadian Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology is sponsored by the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology and the Canadian Association for the Study of the Liver.
期刊最新文献
Kupffer-Cell-Targeted Carboxylesterase 1f Knockdown Deteriorates Lipopolysaccharide/D-Galactosamine-Induced Acute Liver Failure Through Regulating Cellular Polarization in Mice. Role of Virtual Ruler-Based Diameter Measurement in Endoscopic Therapy for Cirrhotic Esophageal Varices: A Retrospective Multicenter Study. Effect of Serum Interleukin-6 Concentration on the Prognosis After Radiotherapy for Patients With Hepatocellular Carcinoma. Acute Variceal Hemorrhage in Germany-A Nationwide Study of 65,357 Hospitalized Cases: Variceal Hemorrhage in Germany. The Predictive Value of Time-Varying Noninvasive Scores on Long-Term Prognosis of NAFLD in South Korea.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1