Copyright
©The Author(s) 2017.
World J Gastroenterol. Sep 14, 2017; 23(34): 6273-6280
Published online Sep 14, 2017. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v23.i34.6273
Published online Sep 14, 2017. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v23.i34.6273
Success (n = 49) | Failure (n = 13) | P value | |
Age, median (range), yr | 74 (42-88) | 71 (16-76) | 0.45 |
Sex (male), n (%) | 33 (67.3) | 8 (61.5) | 0.75 |
Diagnoses | |||
Primary lesion (Biliary tract or pancreatic cancer) | 40 | 10 | 0.70 |
Metastases | 9 | 3 | |
Pancreatic cancer | 1 | ||
Lung cancer | 1 | ||
Tracheal cancer | 1 | ||
Colon cancer | 3 | 2 | |
Uterine cancer | 1 | ||
Gastric cancer | 1 | 1 | |
Prostatic cancer | 1 | ||
Bismuth classification | 0.98 | ||
II | 12 | 3 | |
III | 18 | 5 | |
IV | 19 | 5 | |
Target biliary duct status, | |||
Diameter of the target biliary duct, median (range), mm | 6.4 (2.0-15.9) | 6.6 (4.4-17.3)1 | 0.45 |
Diameter of the target biliary stricture, median (range), mm | 0 (0-1.6) | 0 (0-0.9) | 0.94 |
Diameter of the first implanted SEMS, median (range), mm | 5.8 (3.1-11.7) | 6.7 (3.4-12.6) | 0.25 |
Length of the target biliary stricture, median (range), mm | 11.0 (3.0-69.6) | 7.9 (1.7-34.2)1 | 0.44 |
Angle between the target biliary duct stricture and the first implanted SEMS, median (range), degree | 44.4 (7-119) | 75.3 (28-109.3)1 | < 0.01 |
Success (n = 49) | Failure (n = 13) | P value | |
Procedure time, median (range), min | 70 (20-160) | 90 (40-150)1 | 0.30 |
Clinically effective rate | 49 (100) | 11 (84.6) | 0.04 |
Adverse effects | 1 (2) | 1 (7.7) | 0.38 |
Post-ERCP pancreatitis | 1 | 0 | |
Perforation of biliary duct | 0 | 1 | |
Wire passage of the first SEMS cell | 49 (100) | 9 (69.2) | 0.006 |
Diameter of wire (0.025/0.035) | 32/142 | 6/61 | 0.31 |
Catheter usage to dilate the a first SEMS cell | 24 | 8 | 0.54 |
Catheter passage of the first SEMS cell | 22 (92) | 4 (50) | 0.02 |
Dilator usage to dilate first SEMS cell | 18 | 5 | 1.00 |
Dilator passage of the first SEMS cell | 17 (94) | 2 (40) | 0.02 |
Balloon catheter usage to dilate the first SEMS lumen | 5 | 1 | 1.00 |
Balloon catheter usage to dilate the first SEMS cell | 18 | 3 | 0.51 |
Balloon catheter passage of the first SEMS cell | 18 (100) | 0 (0) | < 0.001 |
The number of used dilation devices, median (range) | 1 (0-3) | 1 (0-3) | 0.79 |
Type of first SEMS used (braided/laser), n | 41/8 | 9/4 | 0.26 |
Stenting order | 0.22 | ||
Left→Left | 2 | 1 | |
Left→Right | 28 | 6 | |
Right→Left | 12 | 6 | |
Right→Right | 7 | 0 | |
Procedure sessions | 0.328 | ||
1 | 42 | 13 | |
2 | 7 | 0 | |
Area of first SEMS cell, median (range), mm2 | 18.3 (3.5-39.3) | 18.3 (3.5-18.3)3 | 0.59 |
Success (n = 19) | Failure (n = 12) | P value | |
Diameter of the first implanted SEMS, median (range), mm | 6.2 (3.1-15.9) | 6.5 (4.4-17.3) | 0.16 |
Wire passage of the first SEMS cell | 19 (100) | 8 (69.2) | 0.02 |
Diameter of wire (0.025/0.035) | 12/61 | 5/61 | 0.44 |
Catheter usage to dilate the a first SEMS cell | 8 | 7 | 0.47 |
Catheter passage of the first SEMS cell | 87.5 (7/8) | 42.9 (3/7) | 0.12 |
Dilator usage to dilate first SEMS cell | 6 | 4 | 1.00 |
Dilator passage of the first SEMS cell | 6 (100) | 1 (25) | 0.03 |
Balloon catheter usage to dilate the first SEMS lumen | 1 | 1 | 1.00 |
Balloon catheter usage to dilate the first SEMS cell | 7 | 2 | 0.42 |
Balloon catheter passage of the first SEMS cell | 7 (100) | 0 (0) | 0.03 |
The number of used dilation devices, median (range) | 1 (0-2) | 1 (0-3) | 0.76 |
Type of first SEMS used (braided/laser) | 13/6 | 8/4 | 1.00 |
Stenting order | 0.53 | ||
Left→Left | 1 | 1 | |
Left→Right | 12 | 5 | |
Right→Left | 6 | 6 | |
Procedure sessions | 0.27 | ||
1 | 16 | 12 | |
2 | 3 | 0 | |
Area of first SEMS cell, median (range), mm2 | 18.3 (3.5-18.3) | 18.3 (3.5-18.3)2 | 0.96 |
- Citation: Sugimoto M, Takagi T, Suzuki R, Konno N, Asama H, Watanabe K, Nakamura J, Kikuchi H, Waragai Y, Takasumi M, Sato Y, Hikichi T, Ohira H. Predictive factors for the failure of endoscopic stent-in-stent self-expandable metallic stent placement to treat malignant hilar biliary obstruction. World J Gastroenterol 2017; 23(34): 6273-6280
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1007-9327/full/v23/i34/6273.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v23.i34.6273