A comparative study on the efficacy of covered metal stent and plastic stent in unresectable malignant biliary obstruction

15Citations
Citations of this article
13Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Background/Aims: The placement of self expandable metal stent (SEMS) is one of the palliative therapeutic options for patients with unresectable malignant biliary obstruction. The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of a covered SEMS versus the conventional plastic stent. Methods: We retrospectively evaluated 44 patients with unresectable malignant biliary obstruction who were treated with a covered SEMS (21 patients) or a plastic stent (10 Fr, 23 patients). We analyzed the technical success rate, functional success rate, early complications, late complications, stent patency and survival rate. Results: There was one case in the covered SEMS group that had failed technically, but was corrected successfully using lasso. Functional success rates were 90.5% in the covered SEMS group and 91.3% in the plastic stent group. There was no difference in early complications between the two groups. Median patency of the stent was significantly prolonged in patients who had a covered SEMS (233.6 days) compared with those who had a plastic stent (94.6 days) (p=0.006). During the follow-up period, stent occlusion occurred in 11 patients of the covered SEMS group. Mean survival showed no significant difference between the two groups (covered SEMS group, 236.9 days; plastic stent group, 222.3 days; p=0.182). Conclusions: The patency of the covered SEMS was longer than that of the plastic stent and the lasso of the covered SEMS was available for repositioning of the stent. © 2012 The Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Choi, J. M., Hong Kim, J., Sun Kim, S., Hwan Yu, J., Chul Hwang, J., Moo Yoo, B., … Hyun Park, D. (2012). A comparative study on the efficacy of covered metal stent and plastic stent in unresectable malignant biliary obstruction. Clinical Endoscopy, 45(1), 78–83. https://doi.org/10.5946/ce.2012.45.1.78

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free