全覆盖金属支架治疗肝移植后肝门周围胆道狭窄:非常有效,但不是万能药。

IF 4.7 2区 医学 Q1 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY
Tatsuya Sato, Naminatsu Takahara, Mitsuhiro Fujishiro
{"title":"全覆盖金属支架治疗肝移植后肝门周围胆道狭窄:非常有效,但不是万能药。","authors":"Tatsuya Sato,&nbsp;Naminatsu Takahara,&nbsp;Mitsuhiro Fujishiro","doi":"10.1111/den.15054","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>In this issue of <i>Digestive Endoscopy</i>, Park <i>et al</i>.<span><sup>1</sup></span> reported the long-term outcomes of a fully-covered self-expandable metal stent (FCSEMS) for refractory anastomotic biliary strictures following liver transplantation (LT) compared with plastic stent (PS) treatment. Notably, living-donor LT (LDLT) patients constitute 70–80% of the study cohort, with strictures located in the common hepatic duct or hilum in 75% of cases. The stricture resolution rate was comparable between the two groups (FCSEMS: 96.7% vs. PS: 94.4%, <i>P</i> = 0.709); however, stricture recurrence was significantly less frequent in the FCSEMS group (17.2% vs. 47.1%, <i>P</i> = 0.036), with a shorter treatment duration (3.1 months vs. 7.6 months, <i>P</i> &lt; 0.001). Therefore, the authors emphasized that FCSEMS can be a promising option for post-LT biliary strictures.</p><p>Among various etiologies of benign biliary strictures, post-LT biliary anastomotic strictures remain one of the most challenging conditions to manage endoscopically. The difficulties stem from tight and tortuous fibrotic strictures, complex anastomoses, and the immunocompromised status of patients. When treating post-LT patients, endoscopists must consider the type of LT – deceased-donor LT (DDLT), or LDLT – as the anastomosis site differs between DDLT and LDLT. In DDLT, the recipient's common bile duct (CBD) is anastomosed to the donor's CBD, whereas in LDLT, the anastomosis is located at the level of the hepatic ducts or more proximal bile ducts. These anatomical features complicate the endoscopic treatment, especially in LDLT cases, due to the smaller anastomotic diameter and the bile duct bifurcation being closer to the anastomosis site. Given these differences, treatment strategies should be tailored for post-DDLT and post-LDLTbiliary strictures.</p><p>Since the introduction of FCSEMS for benign biliary strictures, post-DDLT strictures have been considered suitable indications for FCSEMS placement. In the early 2010s, several randomized controlled trials conducted in Western countries – where DDLT is the predominant LT type – demonstrated that FCSEMS achieved comparable stricture resolution rates with fewer endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography sessions than PS.<span><sup>2, 3</sup></span> This strategy is relatively simple and technically feasible; thus, FCSEMS has become a new standard treatment. In contrast, post-LDLT perihilar strictures are still primarily managed with “traditional” multiple plastic stents. It remains technically challenging due to the anatomical complexity, and sometimes not effective enough, for stricture resolution. Reports from Eastern Asia, particularly South Korea and Japan, where LDLT comprises ~80–90% of LT cases, highlighted the need for more effective treatment options for this population.<span><sup>4, 5</sup></span></p><p>In the current study, the authors provide new insights into the management of perihilar benign biliary strictures after LT. The large diameter and self-expandable nature of FCSEMS may contribute to improved stricture relief, while the fully-covered membrane facilitates secure stent removal after the planned treatment duration. Several other studies have also shown that FCSEMS effectively resolves post-LDLT strictures and reduces recurrence rates.<span><sup>6-8</sup></span> Given its demonstrated effectiveness and safety, FCSEMS may be a promising option even for post-LDLT patients.</p><p>However, careful consideration of patient selection is essential due to potential selection biases in these studies. The heterogeneity in post-LT stricture morphology means that FCSEMS is not suitable for all patients in real-world clinical practice. First, patients with thin intrahepatic bile ducts are not ideal candidates, as a mismatch in the diameter between the FCSEMS and the bile ducts can result in stent migration or de novo stricture formation. Second, cases with complex bile duct bifurcations above the stricture pose a challenge, as FCSEMS may obstruct side branches and induce cholangitis unless additional plastic stents are placed for drainage, as was performed in this study. Third, severe angulation at the anastomosis site precludes FCSEMS use, as the inherent axial force (i.e. straightening force) of the stent can lead to bile duct kinking at the proximal and/or distal end of the stent.</p><p>In conclusion, FCSEMS represents an effective treatment option for post-LT perihilar biliary strictures. However, endoscopists must carefully select appropriate patients to ensure both safety and efficacy, as FCSEMS is highly effective but not a cure-all.</p><p>Authors declare no conflict of interest for this article.</p><p>None.</p>","PeriodicalId":159,"journal":{"name":"Digestive Endoscopy","volume":"37 9","pages":"948-949"},"PeriodicalIF":4.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/den.15054","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Fully-covered metal stent for perihilar biliary strictures after liver transplantation: Highly effective but not a panacea\",\"authors\":\"Tatsuya Sato,&nbsp;Naminatsu Takahara,&nbsp;Mitsuhiro Fujishiro\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/den.15054\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>In this issue of <i>Digestive Endoscopy</i>, Park <i>et al</i>.<span><sup>1</sup></span> reported the long-term outcomes of a fully-covered self-expandable metal stent (FCSEMS) for refractory anastomotic biliary strictures following liver transplantation (LT) compared with plastic stent (PS) treatment. Notably, living-donor LT (LDLT) patients constitute 70–80% of the study cohort, with strictures located in the common hepatic duct or hilum in 75% of cases. The stricture resolution rate was comparable between the two groups (FCSEMS: 96.7% vs. PS: 94.4%, <i>P</i> = 0.709); however, stricture recurrence was significantly less frequent in the FCSEMS group (17.2% vs. 47.1%, <i>P</i> = 0.036), with a shorter treatment duration (3.1 months vs. 7.6 months, <i>P</i> &lt; 0.001). Therefore, the authors emphasized that FCSEMS can be a promising option for post-LT biliary strictures.</p><p>Among various etiologies of benign biliary strictures, post-LT biliary anastomotic strictures remain one of the most challenging conditions to manage endoscopically. The difficulties stem from tight and tortuous fibrotic strictures, complex anastomoses, and the immunocompromised status of patients. When treating post-LT patients, endoscopists must consider the type of LT – deceased-donor LT (DDLT), or LDLT – as the anastomosis site differs between DDLT and LDLT. In DDLT, the recipient's common bile duct (CBD) is anastomosed to the donor's CBD, whereas in LDLT, the anastomosis is located at the level of the hepatic ducts or more proximal bile ducts. These anatomical features complicate the endoscopic treatment, especially in LDLT cases, due to the smaller anastomotic diameter and the bile duct bifurcation being closer to the anastomosis site. Given these differences, treatment strategies should be tailored for post-DDLT and post-LDLTbiliary strictures.</p><p>Since the introduction of FCSEMS for benign biliary strictures, post-DDLT strictures have been considered suitable indications for FCSEMS placement. In the early 2010s, several randomized controlled trials conducted in Western countries – where DDLT is the predominant LT type – demonstrated that FCSEMS achieved comparable stricture resolution rates with fewer endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography sessions than PS.<span><sup>2, 3</sup></span> This strategy is relatively simple and technically feasible; thus, FCSEMS has become a new standard treatment. In contrast, post-LDLT perihilar strictures are still primarily managed with “traditional” multiple plastic stents. It remains technically challenging due to the anatomical complexity, and sometimes not effective enough, for stricture resolution. Reports from Eastern Asia, particularly South Korea and Japan, where LDLT comprises ~80–90% of LT cases, highlighted the need for more effective treatment options for this population.<span><sup>4, 5</sup></span></p><p>In the current study, the authors provide new insights into the management of perihilar benign biliary strictures after LT. The large diameter and self-expandable nature of FCSEMS may contribute to improved stricture relief, while the fully-covered membrane facilitates secure stent removal after the planned treatment duration. Several other studies have also shown that FCSEMS effectively resolves post-LDLT strictures and reduces recurrence rates.<span><sup>6-8</sup></span> Given its demonstrated effectiveness and safety, FCSEMS may be a promising option even for post-LDLT patients.</p><p>However, careful consideration of patient selection is essential due to potential selection biases in these studies. The heterogeneity in post-LT stricture morphology means that FCSEMS is not suitable for all patients in real-world clinical practice. First, patients with thin intrahepatic bile ducts are not ideal candidates, as a mismatch in the diameter between the FCSEMS and the bile ducts can result in stent migration or de novo stricture formation. Second, cases with complex bile duct bifurcations above the stricture pose a challenge, as FCSEMS may obstruct side branches and induce cholangitis unless additional plastic stents are placed for drainage, as was performed in this study. Third, severe angulation at the anastomosis site precludes FCSEMS use, as the inherent axial force (i.e. straightening force) of the stent can lead to bile duct kinking at the proximal and/or distal end of the stent.</p><p>In conclusion, FCSEMS represents an effective treatment option for post-LT perihilar biliary strictures. However, endoscopists must carefully select appropriate patients to ensure both safety and efficacy, as FCSEMS is highly effective but not a cure-all.</p><p>Authors declare no conflict of interest for this article.</p><p>None.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":159,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Digestive Endoscopy\",\"volume\":\"37 9\",\"pages\":\"948-949\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/den.15054\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Digestive Endoscopy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/den.15054\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Digestive Endoscopy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/den.15054","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在这一期的《消化道内窥镜》中,Park等人1报道了全覆盖自膨胀金属支架(fcems)治疗肝移植(LT)后难治性吻合口胆道狭窄与塑料支架(PS)治疗的长期结果。值得注意的是,活体肝移植(LDLT)患者占研究队列的70-80%,75%的病例狭窄位于肝总管或肝门。两组的狭窄缓解率具有可比性(FCSEMS: 96.7% vs. PS: 94.4%, P = 0.709);然而,FCSEMS组狭窄复发率明显较低(17.2%比47.1%,P = 0.036),治疗时间较短(3.1个月比7.6个月,P < 0.001)。因此,作者强调fcems可能是lt后胆道狭窄的一个有希望的选择。在各种原因的良性胆道狭窄中,lt后胆道吻合口狭窄仍然是内镜下治疗最具挑战性的条件之一。困难源于狭窄和弯曲的纤维化狭窄,复杂的吻合,以及患者的免疫功能低下。在治疗肝移植后患者时,内镜医师必须考虑肝移植的类型-死亡供体肝移植(DDLT)或LDLT -,因为DDLT和LDLT的吻合部位不同。在DDLT中,受体的总胆管(CBD)与供体的总胆管吻合,而在LDLT中,吻合点位于肝管或更近端的胆管水平。这些解剖特征使内镜治疗复杂化,特别是在LDLT病例中,由于吻合口直径较小,胆管分叉更靠近吻合口。鉴于这些差异,治疗策略应针对后ddlt和后ldlt胆道狭窄量身定制。自从引入fcems治疗良性胆道狭窄以来,ddlt后狭窄被认为是fcems放置的合适适应症。在2010年代早期,在西方国家进行的几项随机对照试验(DDLT是主要的LT类型)表明,fcems与ps相比,通过更少的内窥镜逆行胆管造影次数,实现了相当的狭窄解析率。因此,fcems已成为新的标准治疗方法。相比之下,ldlt后门静脉周围狭窄仍然主要使用“传统”的多个塑料支架进行治疗。由于解剖学的复杂性,它在技术上仍然具有挑战性,有时不够有效,用于狭窄的解决。来自东亚的报告,特别是韩国和日本,其中LDLT占LT病例的80-90%,强调需要为这一人群提供更有效的治疗方案。4,5在目前的研究中,作者为lt后肝门周围良性胆道狭窄的处理提供了新的见解。fcems的大直径和自膨胀特性可能有助于改善狭窄缓解,而完全覆盖的膜有助于在计划的治疗时间后安全地取出支架。其他几项研究也表明,fcems可有效解决ldlt后狭窄并降低复发率。考虑到其已证实的有效性和安全性,FCSEMS可能是ldlt后患者的一个有希望的选择。然而,由于这些研究中潜在的选择偏差,仔细考虑患者选择是必不可少的。肝移植后狭窄形态的异质性意味着fcems并不适用于所有患者。首先,肝内胆管薄的患者不是理想的选择,因为fcems与胆管之间的直径不匹配可能导致支架迁移或重新形成狭窄。其次,狭窄上方有复杂胆管分叉的病例是一个挑战,因为fcems可能阻塞侧分支并诱发胆管炎,除非像本研究中那样放置额外的塑料支架进行引流。第三,吻合部位的严重成角阻碍了fcems的使用,因为支架固有的轴向力(即矫直力)可导致支架近端和/或远端胆管扭结。总之,fcems是lt后肝门周围胆道狭窄的有效治疗选择。然而,内窥镜医生必须仔细选择合适的患者,以确保安全性和有效性,因为fcems非常有效,但不是包治百病。作者声明本文不存在利益冲突。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Fully-covered metal stent for perihilar biliary strictures after liver transplantation: Highly effective but not a panacea

In this issue of Digestive Endoscopy, Park et al.1 reported the long-term outcomes of a fully-covered self-expandable metal stent (FCSEMS) for refractory anastomotic biliary strictures following liver transplantation (LT) compared with plastic stent (PS) treatment. Notably, living-donor LT (LDLT) patients constitute 70–80% of the study cohort, with strictures located in the common hepatic duct or hilum in 75% of cases. The stricture resolution rate was comparable between the two groups (FCSEMS: 96.7% vs. PS: 94.4%, P = 0.709); however, stricture recurrence was significantly less frequent in the FCSEMS group (17.2% vs. 47.1%, P = 0.036), with a shorter treatment duration (3.1 months vs. 7.6 months, P < 0.001). Therefore, the authors emphasized that FCSEMS can be a promising option for post-LT biliary strictures.

Among various etiologies of benign biliary strictures, post-LT biliary anastomotic strictures remain one of the most challenging conditions to manage endoscopically. The difficulties stem from tight and tortuous fibrotic strictures, complex anastomoses, and the immunocompromised status of patients. When treating post-LT patients, endoscopists must consider the type of LT – deceased-donor LT (DDLT), or LDLT – as the anastomosis site differs between DDLT and LDLT. In DDLT, the recipient's common bile duct (CBD) is anastomosed to the donor's CBD, whereas in LDLT, the anastomosis is located at the level of the hepatic ducts or more proximal bile ducts. These anatomical features complicate the endoscopic treatment, especially in LDLT cases, due to the smaller anastomotic diameter and the bile duct bifurcation being closer to the anastomosis site. Given these differences, treatment strategies should be tailored for post-DDLT and post-LDLTbiliary strictures.

Since the introduction of FCSEMS for benign biliary strictures, post-DDLT strictures have been considered suitable indications for FCSEMS placement. In the early 2010s, several randomized controlled trials conducted in Western countries – where DDLT is the predominant LT type – demonstrated that FCSEMS achieved comparable stricture resolution rates with fewer endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography sessions than PS.2, 3 This strategy is relatively simple and technically feasible; thus, FCSEMS has become a new standard treatment. In contrast, post-LDLT perihilar strictures are still primarily managed with “traditional” multiple plastic stents. It remains technically challenging due to the anatomical complexity, and sometimes not effective enough, for stricture resolution. Reports from Eastern Asia, particularly South Korea and Japan, where LDLT comprises ~80–90% of LT cases, highlighted the need for more effective treatment options for this population.4, 5

In the current study, the authors provide new insights into the management of perihilar benign biliary strictures after LT. The large diameter and self-expandable nature of FCSEMS may contribute to improved stricture relief, while the fully-covered membrane facilitates secure stent removal after the planned treatment duration. Several other studies have also shown that FCSEMS effectively resolves post-LDLT strictures and reduces recurrence rates.6-8 Given its demonstrated effectiveness and safety, FCSEMS may be a promising option even for post-LDLT patients.

However, careful consideration of patient selection is essential due to potential selection biases in these studies. The heterogeneity in post-LT stricture morphology means that FCSEMS is not suitable for all patients in real-world clinical practice. First, patients with thin intrahepatic bile ducts are not ideal candidates, as a mismatch in the diameter between the FCSEMS and the bile ducts can result in stent migration or de novo stricture formation. Second, cases with complex bile duct bifurcations above the stricture pose a challenge, as FCSEMS may obstruct side branches and induce cholangitis unless additional plastic stents are placed for drainage, as was performed in this study. Third, severe angulation at the anastomosis site precludes FCSEMS use, as the inherent axial force (i.e. straightening force) of the stent can lead to bile duct kinking at the proximal and/or distal end of the stent.

In conclusion, FCSEMS represents an effective treatment option for post-LT perihilar biliary strictures. However, endoscopists must carefully select appropriate patients to ensure both safety and efficacy, as FCSEMS is highly effective but not a cure-all.

Authors declare no conflict of interest for this article.

None.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Digestive Endoscopy
Digestive Endoscopy 医学-外科
CiteScore
10.10
自引率
15.10%
发文量
291
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Digestive Endoscopy (DEN) is the official journal of the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society, the Asian Pacific Society for Digestive Endoscopy and the World Endoscopy Organization. Digestive Endoscopy serves as a medium for presenting original articles that offer significant contributions to knowledge in the broad field of endoscopy. The Journal also includes Reviews, Original Articles, How I Do It, Case Reports (only of exceptional interest and novelty are accepted), Letters, Techniques and Images, abstracts and news items that may be of interest to endoscopists.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信