Laser-cut-type versus braided-type covered self-expandable metallic stents for distal biliary obstruction caused by pancreatic carcinoma: a retrospective comparative cohort study

Braided-type stent versus laser-cut-type stent for patients with unresectable distal malignant biliary obstruction: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Fully covered self-expandable metallic stents (SEMSs) are laser-cut (L) or braided (B); however, it remains unclear which approach is more effective for distal malignant biliary obstruction (DMBO). This study compared the clinical outcomes of using L-type and B-type stents because we believe that recurrent biliary obstruction (RBO) is less likely to occur with L-type stents.

METHODS

Patients diagnosed with unresectable DMBO were randomly assigned to groups L and B in a stratified block fashion, and outcomes were compared. The primary outcome was the rate of RBO within 1 year; secondary outcomes were adverse events, clinical success rate, time to RBO (TRBO), and overall survival.

RESULTS

Of the 60 enrolled participants, 56 (group L, n = 27; group B, n = 29) were included. The rates of RBO within 1 year were 44.4% and 17.2% in groups L and B, respectively (odds ratio, 2.57; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.045-6.353). Early adverse events, which improved with conservative treatment, included pancreatitis (n = 4) in group L and pancreatitis (n = 3) and cholecystitis (n = 1) in group B (P = .913). The median TRBO (220 days [95% CI, 56-272] vs 418 days [95% CI, 232-454]) was significantly longer in group B than in group L (log-rank test, P = .0118). The median overall survival (group L, 158 days; group B, 204 days) after stenting was not significantly different between groups (P = .8544).

CONCLUSIONS

In the setting of DMBO, B-type stents are associated with less recurrent obstruction than L-type stents, although there was no difference in safety. (UMIN Clinical Trials Registry number: UMIN000027239.).

Comparable Efficacy of Laser-Cut and Braided Self Expanding Metallic Biliary Stent: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

In patients with unresectable malignant biliary obstruction (MBO), endoscopic biliary drainage is the treatment of choice. Self-expanding metallic stents (SEMS) are mainly used for this purpose, and data is limited on the comparative outcomes of laser-cut versus braided SEMS. Herein, we performed the first systematic review and meta-analysis to study the effectiveness and safety of braided and laser-cut SEMS in MBO.

METHODS

Multiple databases, including Medline, Scopus, and Embase, were searched (in May 2022) using specific terms for studies evaluating the outcomes of braided and laser-cut SEMS in MBO. Outcomes of interest were technical and clinical success, recurrent biliary obstruction, and adverse events. Standard meta-analysis methods were employed using the random-effects model. I2% heterogeneity was used to assess the heterogeneity.

RESULTS

Seven studies were included in the final analysis. (Laser-cut: 271 patients, 46% females, mean age 70 years; and braided: 282 patients, 47% females, mean age 72 years). The pooled rate of technical success and clinical success with laser-cut SEMS was 99% (95% CI [95-99; I2 = 0%]), 86% [60-96; I2 = 74%], and 98% [96-99; I2 = 0%], 89% [74-95; I2 = 78%] with braided. The pooled rate of recurrent biliary obstruction with laser-cut SEMS was 26% [14-43; I2 = 88%] and 12% [5-27; I2 = 56%) with braided. Pooled total adverse events were 11% [5-21; I2 = 77%] in laser-cut and 12% [6-24; I2 = 63%] in braided.

CONCLUSION

Our meta-analysis demonstrates similar clinical outcomes with laser-cut and braided SEMS in MBO. Given the comparable performance, a cost-effectiveness analysis might help in choosing one type versus another in patients with MBO.

Evaluation of the mechanical properties of current biliary self-expandable metallic stents: axial and radial force, and axial force zero border

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Mechanical properties (MPs) and axial and radial force (AF and RF) may influence the efficacy and complications of self-expandable metallic stent (SEMS) placement. We measured the MPs of various SEMSs and examined their influence on the SEMS clinical ability.

METHODS

We evaluated the MPs of 29 types of 10-mm SEMSs. RF was measured using a conventional measurement device. AF was measured using the conventional and new methods, and the correlation between the methods was evaluated.

RESULTS

A high correlation in AFs was observed, as measured by the new and conventional manual methods. AF and RF scatterplots divided the SEMSs into three subgroups according to structure: hook-and-cross-type (low AF and RF), cross-type (high AF and low RF), and laser-cut-type (intermediate AF and high RF). The hook-and-cross-type had the largest axial force zero border (>20°), followed by the laser-cut and cross types.

CONCLUSION

MPs were related to stent structure. Hook-and-cross-type SEMSs had a low AF and high axial force zero border and were considered safest because they caused minimal stress on the biliary wall. However, the increase in RF must be overcome.

Removal of Duckbill-type laser-cut anti-reflux metal stents: Clinical evaluation and in vitro study

Objectives

Duckbill-type metal stent (DMS) was the first laser-cut biliary metal stent with an anti-reflux valve. Removal of DMS is believed to be difficult and relevant reports are scarce. This study aims to investigate the feasibility of DMS removal.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed patients who underwent DMS removal between June 2019 and March 2022 to evaluate success rates and factors affecting outcomes. In addition, six different methods of DMS removal were reproduced in vitro, varying removal devices, angle of applied force, and grasped location. Extraction resistance, the distance of forceps stroke, and stent length after removal were compared.

Results

Forty patients were enrolled, and DMS removal was successful in 31 cases (78%). No adverse events were observed. Tumor ingrowth was evident in 78% (7/9) of failed cases. Patients receiving biliary metal stents for the first time (naïve cases), long indwelling time, longer stent, and stent tearing during removal were associated with unsuccessful stent removal. In the in vitro study, a larger force was required to remove the stent at an extraction angle of 120° than at 0°. Among cases in which force was applied at 120°, the load tended to be lower when rat-tooth forceps were applied horizontally across the stent.

Conclusions

Stent removal was possible in a majority of cases. Deployment of additional stents inside DMS may be preferable to forceful removal in the presence of factors associated with difficult stent removals, such as tumor ingrowth, naïve cases, longer stents, long indwelling time, and stent tearing during removal.