{"title":"为无法手术的肝门部胆管癌植入支架:单侧放射性支架与双侧正常支架的比较。","authors":"Yi-Ren Liu, Shi-Jun Cui, Zhu Tong, Tao Song, Fu-Kang Yuan, Jin-Ling Feng","doi":"10.1097/SLE.0000000000001270","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To comparatively analyze the clinical efficacy and safety of unilateral radioactive stent (RS) insertion versus bilateral normal stent (NS) insertion in patients with inoperable hilar cholangiocarcinoma (HC).</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>Patients with inoperable HC were treated in our hospital from January 2016 to December 2020. The treatment approach included the insertion of either unilateral RS or bilateral NS, evaluating the efficacy and safety of therapy in 2 distinct groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 58 individuals experienced the insertion of a unilateral RS, whereas 57 patients underwent the insertion of bilateral NS. No statistically significant difference between the unilateral RS and bilateral NS groups was seen in the technical success rates (98.3% vs 94.7%, P = 0.598) and clinical success rates (98.2% vs 100%, P = 0.514). While there is no statistically significant difference in the rates of stent restenosis (19.3% vs 9.3%, P = 0.132) between the two groups, the unilateral RS group demonstrated substantially longer stent patency (202 vs 119 d, P = 0.016) and overall survival (229 vs 122 d, P = 0.004) compared with the bilateral NS group. Moreover, 8 patients (14.0%) in the unilateral RS group and 14 patients (25.9%) in the bilateral NS group had postoperative complications with no significant difference ( P = 0.116).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>When inserting stents for inoperable HC, both unilateral RS and bilateral NS insertion procedures have demonstrated favorable therapeutic efficacy. Nevertheless, inserting a unilateral RS provided a longer duration of stent patency and overall survival than implantation of bilateral NS.</p>","PeriodicalId":22092,"journal":{"name":"Surgical Laparoscopy, Endoscopy & Percutaneous Techniques","volume":" ","pages":"190-195"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Stent Insertion for Inoperable Hilar Cholangiocarcinoma: Comparison Between Unilateral Radioactive Stent and Bilateral Normal Stent.\",\"authors\":\"Yi-Ren Liu, Shi-Jun Cui, Zhu Tong, Tao Song, Fu-Kang Yuan, Jin-Ling Feng\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/SLE.0000000000001270\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To comparatively analyze the clinical efficacy and safety of unilateral radioactive stent (RS) insertion versus bilateral normal stent (NS) insertion in patients with inoperable hilar cholangiocarcinoma (HC).</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>Patients with inoperable HC were treated in our hospital from January 2016 to December 2020. The treatment approach included the insertion of either unilateral RS or bilateral NS, evaluating the efficacy and safety of therapy in 2 distinct groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 58 individuals experienced the insertion of a unilateral RS, whereas 57 patients underwent the insertion of bilateral NS. No statistically significant difference between the unilateral RS and bilateral NS groups was seen in the technical success rates (98.3% vs 94.7%, P = 0.598) and clinical success rates (98.2% vs 100%, P = 0.514). While there is no statistically significant difference in the rates of stent restenosis (19.3% vs 9.3%, P = 0.132) between the two groups, the unilateral RS group demonstrated substantially longer stent patency (202 vs 119 d, P = 0.016) and overall survival (229 vs 122 d, P = 0.004) compared with the bilateral NS group. Moreover, 8 patients (14.0%) in the unilateral RS group and 14 patients (25.9%) in the bilateral NS group had postoperative complications with no significant difference ( P = 0.116).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>When inserting stents for inoperable HC, both unilateral RS and bilateral NS insertion procedures have demonstrated favorable therapeutic efficacy. Nevertheless, inserting a unilateral RS provided a longer duration of stent patency and overall survival than implantation of bilateral NS.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":22092,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Surgical Laparoscopy, Endoscopy & Percutaneous Techniques\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"190-195\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Surgical Laparoscopy, Endoscopy & Percutaneous Techniques\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/SLE.0000000000001270\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"SURGERY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Surgical Laparoscopy, Endoscopy & Percutaneous Techniques","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/SLE.0000000000001270","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目的比较分析单侧放射性支架(RS)植入与双侧普通支架(NS)植入在无法手术的肝门部胆管癌(HC)患者中的临床疗效和安全性:2016年1月至2020年12月在我院接受治疗的无法手术的肝门部胆管癌患者。治疗方法包括插入单侧RS或双侧NS,评估两组不同患者的疗效和安全性:结果:共有58名患者接受了单侧RS置入术,57名患者接受了双侧NS置入术。在技术成功率(98.3% vs 94.7%,P = 0.598)和临床成功率(98.2% vs 100%,P = 0.514)方面,单侧 RS 组和双侧 NS 组之间没有明显的统计学差异。虽然两组患者的支架再狭窄率(19.3% vs 9.3%,P = 0.132)无统计学差异,但与双侧 NS 组相比,单侧 RS 组的支架通畅率(202 vs 119 d,P = 0.016)和总存活率(229 vs 122 d,P = 0.004)明显更长。此外,单侧 RS 组有 8 名患者(14.0%)出现术后并发症,双侧 NS 组有 14 名患者(25.9%)出现术后并发症,两者无显著差异(P = 0.116):结论:在为无法手术的 HC 植入支架时,单侧 RS 和双侧 NS 植入术均显示出良好的疗效。结论:在为无法手术的 HC 植入支架时,单侧 RS 和双侧 NS 均显示出良好的疗效,但与植入双侧 NS 相比,植入单侧 RS 的支架通畅时间更长,总存活率更高。
Stent Insertion for Inoperable Hilar Cholangiocarcinoma: Comparison Between Unilateral Radioactive Stent and Bilateral Normal Stent.
Objective: To comparatively analyze the clinical efficacy and safety of unilateral radioactive stent (RS) insertion versus bilateral normal stent (NS) insertion in patients with inoperable hilar cholangiocarcinoma (HC).
Patients and methods: Patients with inoperable HC were treated in our hospital from January 2016 to December 2020. The treatment approach included the insertion of either unilateral RS or bilateral NS, evaluating the efficacy and safety of therapy in 2 distinct groups.
Results: A total of 58 individuals experienced the insertion of a unilateral RS, whereas 57 patients underwent the insertion of bilateral NS. No statistically significant difference between the unilateral RS and bilateral NS groups was seen in the technical success rates (98.3% vs 94.7%, P = 0.598) and clinical success rates (98.2% vs 100%, P = 0.514). While there is no statistically significant difference in the rates of stent restenosis (19.3% vs 9.3%, P = 0.132) between the two groups, the unilateral RS group demonstrated substantially longer stent patency (202 vs 119 d, P = 0.016) and overall survival (229 vs 122 d, P = 0.004) compared with the bilateral NS group. Moreover, 8 patients (14.0%) in the unilateral RS group and 14 patients (25.9%) in the bilateral NS group had postoperative complications with no significant difference ( P = 0.116).
Conclusion: When inserting stents for inoperable HC, both unilateral RS and bilateral NS insertion procedures have demonstrated favorable therapeutic efficacy. Nevertheless, inserting a unilateral RS provided a longer duration of stent patency and overall survival than implantation of bilateral NS.
期刊介绍:
Surgical Laparoscopy Endoscopy & Percutaneous Techniques is a primary source for peer-reviewed, original articles on the newest techniques and applications in operative laparoscopy and endoscopy. Its Editorial Board includes many of the surgeons who pioneered the use of these revolutionary techniques. The journal provides complete, timely, accurate, practical coverage of laparoscopic and endoscopic techniques and procedures; current clinical and basic science research; preoperative and postoperative patient management; complications in laparoscopic and endoscopic surgery; and new developments in instrumentation and technology.