The efficacy and safety of a duckbill-type anti-reflux metal stent as the initial metal stent for distal malignant biliary obstruction in unresectable pancreatic cancer.
anti‐reflux metal stent
covered metal stent
distal malignant biliary obstruction
pancreatic cancer
recurrent biliary obstruction
Journal
DEN open
ISSN: 2692-4609
Titre abrégé: DEN Open
Pays: Australia
ID NLM: 9918317682706676
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Apr 2023
Apr 2023
Historique:
received:
18
11
2022
revised:
03
12
2022
accepted:
17
12
2022
entrez:
13
1
2023
pubmed:
14
1
2023
medline:
14
1
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The usefulness of duckbill-type anti-reflux metal stent (DMS) in self-expandable metal stent-naïve pancreatic cancer (PC) patients has not been well-studied. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of DMS in such patients. We analyzed consecutive patients with unresectable PC who received a covered metal stent (CMS) as the initial self-expandable metal stent at our institution. Technical success, functional success, causes of recurrent biliary obstruction (RBO), time to RBO (TRBO), adverse events (AEs), and reintervention rates were compared between DMS and conventional CMS (c-CMS). A total of 69 patients were included (DMS: 28, c-CMS: 41). Technical success, functional success, and AEs were similar between groups. Tumor ingrowth was more common in the DMS group (18% vs. 0%, DMS was not associated with longer time to RBO compared to c-CMS in self-expandable metal stent-naïve patients.
Sections du résumé
Background
UNASSIGNED
The usefulness of duckbill-type anti-reflux metal stent (DMS) in self-expandable metal stent-naïve pancreatic cancer (PC) patients has not been well-studied. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of DMS in such patients.
Methods
UNASSIGNED
We analyzed consecutive patients with unresectable PC who received a covered metal stent (CMS) as the initial self-expandable metal stent at our institution. Technical success, functional success, causes of recurrent biliary obstruction (RBO), time to RBO (TRBO), adverse events (AEs), and reintervention rates were compared between DMS and conventional CMS (c-CMS).
Results
UNASSIGNED
A total of 69 patients were included (DMS: 28, c-CMS: 41). Technical success, functional success, and AEs were similar between groups. Tumor ingrowth was more common in the DMS group (18% vs. 0%,
Conclusions
UNASSIGNED
DMS was not associated with longer time to RBO compared to c-CMS in self-expandable metal stent-naïve patients.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36636718
doi: 10.1002/deo2.205
pii: DEO2205
pmc: PMC9829095
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
e205Informations de copyright
© 2023 The Authors. DEN Open published by John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd on behalf of Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
None.
Références
Gastrointest Endosc. 2011 Sep;74(3):548-55
pubmed: 21794859
J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci. 2021 Jul;28(7):563-571
pubmed: 33835728
Gastrointest Endosc. 2010 Mar;71(3):446-54
pubmed: 20189503
Gastrointest Endosc. 2016 Feb;83(2):404-12
pubmed: 26385187
J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci. 2022 Sep 15;:
pubmed: 36106919
Dig Endosc. 2019 Sep;31(5):566-574
pubmed: 30803046
J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci. 2022 May;29(5):585-593
pubmed: 34390208
Ann Gastroenterol. 2019 Nov-Dec;32(6):605-613
pubmed: 31700238
Surg Endosc. 2013 Apr;27(4):1243-8
pubmed: 23073685
Gastrointest Endosc. 2006 May;63(6):792-6
pubmed: 16650540
Gastric Cancer. 1998 Dec;1(1):10-24
pubmed: 11957040
J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci. 2023 Jan;30(1):144-152
pubmed: 35583159
Dig Endosc. 2013 May;25(3):308-12
pubmed: 23369050
Dig Endosc. 2011 Oct;23(4):310-5
pubmed: 21951091
Gastrointest Endosc. 2012 Jul;76(1):84-92
pubmed: 22482918
J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2020 Jun;35(6):967-979
pubmed: 31802537
Dig Endosc. 2013 Jan;25(1):60-6
pubmed: 23286258
DEN Open. 2022 Mar 09;2(1):e103
pubmed: 35873508
Bone Marrow Transplant. 2013 Mar;48(3):452-8
pubmed: 23208313
Dig Endosc. 2021 May;33(4):648-655
pubmed: 32875614
Endoscopy. 2014 Feb;46(2):120-6
pubmed: 24477367
Dig Endosc. 2022 Jul;34(5):938-951
pubmed: 35114036
Gastrointest Endosc. 2009 Aug;70(2):317-21
pubmed: 19539920
Gastrointest Endosc. 2011 Jan;73(1):143-8
pubmed: 20970788
Gut Liver. 2013 Nov;7(6):725-30
pubmed: 24312715
World J Gastroenterol. 2011 Jun 7;17(21):2652-7
pubmed: 21677835
Dig Endosc. 2015 Jan;27(2):259-64
pubmed: 25209944