Covered Versus Uncovered Metal Stents for the Drainage of the Malignant Distal Biliary Obstruction With ERCP: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

IF 2.8 4区 医学 Q2 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY
Gerly Edson Guzmán-Calderón, Juan Chirinos, Carlos Díaz-Arocutipa, Eduardo Vesco, Jorge Huerta-Mercado, Hugo Cedrón, Dora Montezuma, Gunther Poppele, José Ramón Aparicio
{"title":"Covered Versus Uncovered Metal Stents for the Drainage of the Malignant Distal Biliary Obstruction With ERCP: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.","authors":"Gerly Edson Guzmán-Calderón, Juan Chirinos, Carlos Díaz-Arocutipa, Eduardo Vesco, Jorge Huerta-Mercado, Hugo Cedrón, Dora Montezuma, Gunther Poppele, José Ramón Aparicio","doi":"10.1097/MCG.0000000000002011","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction and aim: </strong>Unresectable malignant distal biliary obstruction is a condition that should be treated with drainage and clearance of the biliary duct. self-expanded metal stents (SEMS) are known to be better and more effective than plastic stents because the patency is longer. The actual evidence is insufficient to recommend if it is better the use of SEMSu over SEMSc or vice versa for the drainage of the malignant distal biliary obstruction during ERCP. We performed a systematic review and meta-analyses to demonstrate if exists superiority between one or other type of SEMS performed by ERCP.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>We conducted a systematic review in different databases, such as PubMed, Cochrane, Medline, and OVID database. A search was made of all studies published up to May 2023.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Seven studies were analyzed. A total of 1070 patients were included. Of the total of patients, 48.9% were male. The cumulative stent patency, the failure rate, the survival probably and the adverse events rate, were similar between SEMSc and SEMSu groups. The stent migration rate was higher in the SEMSc group (RR=2.34 [95% CI: 1.35-4.08]). The tumor overgrowth was higher in the SEMSc group (RR=2.05 [95% CI: 1.13-3.72]). The tumor ingrowth was higher in the SEMSu group (RR=0.25 [95% CI: 0.11-0.61]).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The conclusions of our study show that there are no differences between the use of uncovered SEMS and covered SEMS for palliative treatment of distal biliopancreatic obstructions, and it has no impact on mortality or patient survival. New functional studies regarding the type of stent cover, radial force or length thereof are required.</p>","PeriodicalId":15457,"journal":{"name":"Journal of clinical gastroenterology","volume":" ","pages":"276-284"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of clinical gastroenterology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/MCG.0000000000002011","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction and aim: Unresectable malignant distal biliary obstruction is a condition that should be treated with drainage and clearance of the biliary duct. self-expanded metal stents (SEMS) are known to be better and more effective than plastic stents because the patency is longer. The actual evidence is insufficient to recommend if it is better the use of SEMSu over SEMSc or vice versa for the drainage of the malignant distal biliary obstruction during ERCP. We performed a systematic review and meta-analyses to demonstrate if exists superiority between one or other type of SEMS performed by ERCP.

Materials and methods: We conducted a systematic review in different databases, such as PubMed, Cochrane, Medline, and OVID database. A search was made of all studies published up to May 2023.

Results: Seven studies were analyzed. A total of 1070 patients were included. Of the total of patients, 48.9% were male. The cumulative stent patency, the failure rate, the survival probably and the adverse events rate, were similar between SEMSc and SEMSu groups. The stent migration rate was higher in the SEMSc group (RR=2.34 [95% CI: 1.35-4.08]). The tumor overgrowth was higher in the SEMSc group (RR=2.05 [95% CI: 1.13-3.72]). The tumor ingrowth was higher in the SEMSu group (RR=0.25 [95% CI: 0.11-0.61]).

Conclusions: The conclusions of our study show that there are no differences between the use of uncovered SEMS and covered SEMS for palliative treatment of distal biliopancreatic obstructions, and it has no impact on mortality or patient survival. New functional studies regarding the type of stent cover, radial force or length thereof are required.

使用 ERCP 引流恶性远端胆道梗阻时使用有盖金属支架还是无盖金属支架:系统性回顾和 Meta 分析。
导言和目的:不可切除的恶性远端胆道梗阻应通过胆道引流和清理来治疗。众所周知,自膨胀金属支架(SEMS)比塑料支架更好、更有效,因为其通畅时间更长。在ERCP期间引流恶性远端胆道梗阻时,使用SEMSu比使用SEMSc更好,或者反之亦然,但实际证据尚不充分。我们进行了一项系统性回顾和荟萃分析,以证明ERCP进行的一种或另一种SEMS之间是否存在优越性:我们在不同的数据库(如 PubMed、Cochrane、Medline 和 OVID 数据库)中进行了系统综述。结果:分析了七项研究:结果:分析了七项研究。共纳入 1070 名患者。在所有患者中,48.9%为男性。SEMSc组和SEMSu组的支架累积通畅率、失败率、存活率和不良事件发生率相似。SEMSc组的支架移位率更高(RR=2.34 [95% CI:1.35-4.08])。SEMSc组的肿瘤过度生长率更高(RR=2.05 [95% CI: 1.13-3.72])。SEMSu组的肿瘤生长率更高(RR=0.25 [95% CI:0.11-0.61]):我们的研究结论表明,在远端胆胰梗阻的姑息治疗中,使用无盖SEMS和有盖SEMS没有区别,对死亡率和患者生存率也没有影响。关于支架盖的类型、径向力或其长度,需要进行新的功能性研究。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of clinical gastroenterology
Journal of clinical gastroenterology 医学-胃肠肝病学
CiteScore
5.60
自引率
3.40%
发文量
339
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology gathers the world''s latest, most relevant clinical studies and reviews, case reports, and technical expertise in a single source. Regular features include cutting-edge, peer-reviewed articles and clinical reviews that put the latest research and development into the context of your practice. Also included are biographies, focused organ reviews, practice management, and therapeutic recommendations.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信