Open Access
Open Peer Review

This article has Open Peer Review reports available.

How does Open Peer Review work?

Plastic or metal stents for benign extrahepatic biliary strictures: a systematic review

  • Petra GA van Boeckel1Email author,
  • Frank P Vleggaar1 and
  • Peter D Siersema1
BMC Gastroenterology20099:96

DOI: 10.1186/1471-230X-9-96

Received: 17 July 2009

Accepted: 17 December 2009

Published: 17 December 2009

Abstract

Background

Benign biliary strictures may be a consequence of surgical procedures, chronic pancreatitis or iatrogenic injuries to the ampulla. Stents are increasingly being used for this indication, however it is not completely clear which stent type should be preferred.

Methods

A systematic review on stent placement for benign extrahepatic biliary strictures was performed after searching PubMed and EMBASE databases. Data were pooled and evaluated for technical success, clinical success and complications.

Results

In total, 47 studies (1116 patients) on outcome of stent placement were identified. No randomized controlled trials (RCTs), one non-randomized comparative studies and 46 case series were found. Technical success was 98,9% for uncovered self-expandable metal stents (uSEMS), 94,8% for single plastic stents and 94,0% for multiple plastic stents. Overall clinical success rate was highest for placement of multiple plastic stents (94,3%) followed by uSEMS (79,5%) and single plastic stents (59.6%). Complications occurred more frequently with uSEMS (39.5%) compared with single plastic stents (36.0%) and multiple plastic stents (20,3%).

Conclusion

Based on clinical success and risk of complications, placement of multiple plastic stents is currently the best choice. The evolving role of cSEMS placement as a more patient friendly and cost effective treatment for benign biliary strictures needs further elucidation. There is a need for RCTs comparing different stent types for this indication.

Background

Benign biliary strictures occur most frequently as a consequence of a surgical procedure of the gallbladder, mainly cholecystectomy, or common bile duct (CBD) [1]. Other causes include inflammatory conditions, such as chronic pancreatitis and sclerosing cholangitis [2]. In addition, cholelithiasis, sphincterotomy and infections of the biliary tract may also lead to a stricture [3]. Benign strictures of the biliary tract are associated with a broad spectrum of signs and symptoms, ranging from subclinical disease with mild elevation of liver enzymes to complete obstruction with jaundice, pruritus and cholangitis, and ultimately biliary cirrhosis [4].

A bilio-digestive anastomosis, or a percutaneously or endoscopically performed dilation with or without stent placement are the most commonly used treatment options for benign biliary strictures[5]. Stent placement in the CBD is an increasingly being used alternative to surgery. Several reports on the nonsurgical management of benign biliary strictures with stents have shown results which are equal to those obtained by surgery [612]. The endoscopic management typically consists of dilation and insertion of one or more plastic stents followed by elective stent exchange every 3 months to avoid cholangitis caused by stent clogging [4, 13]. An increasing number of plastic stents will progressively dilate a stricture in the CBD or the papilla. The major disadvantages of this method are the need for multiple invasive procedures and the morbidity caused by stent dysfunction resulting in recurrent jaundice and cholangitis.

In malignant biliary strictures, uncovered self-expanding metal stents (uSEMS) have been shown to have a longer stent patency than plastic stents, mainly because of their larger diameter [4, 14]. Nonetheless, long-term stent patency is a limiting factor with uSEMS as well, as these devices may obstruct due to epithelial hyperplasia and tissue ingrowth through the stent meshes [1517]. This process of epithelial hyperplasia causes embedding of the stent into the bile duct mucosa, making removal of uSEMS difficult or even impossible [18]. These drawbacks limit the use of uSEMS in the treatment of benign biliary strictures.

Only limited data comparing the efficacy and safety of different biliary stent types for benign biliary strictures are available. We therefore performed a systematic review of the current literature to assess technical and clinical success, and complications of different stent types for this indication.

Methods

Systematic search

A systematic search of PubMed between January 1966 and March 2008 and EMBASE between January 1980 and March 2008 was performed. In PubMed, the MeSH headings 'cholestasis' and 'obstructive jaundice' were used in combination with the MeSH heading 'stent'. In EMBASE a similar search using the same headings was performed. We detected 1051 abstracts in PubMed and 476 abstracts in EMBASE and these 1527 abstracts were evaluated. All studies reporting on biliary stent placement in patients with benign strictures were included. Non-English language studies, letters, editorials, reviews, animal studies, single case reports, studies with data on covered self-expandable metal stents (cSEMS), studies with results on intrahepatic strictures, studies with strictures of unknown origin and studies in patients with malignant strictures or children were excluded. This resulted in 51 abstracts being retrieved as full text. Thirteen studies were excluded because they were duplicates and 23 studies because they contained no data on stent placement for benign biliary strictures. Another 32 studies were added after manual searching of references in the selected studies. Finally, 47 studies were retrieved for data extraction (Figure 1).
https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1471-230X-9-96/MediaObjects/12876_2009_Article_388_Fig1_HTML.jpg
Figure 1

Flowchart of search history on stents for benign extrahepatic biliary strictures.

Data extraction

Data on study design, number of patients, etiology and location of the stricture, route of stent placement, stent type, follow-up time, previous treatment, median stenting time, technical and clinical success rates, patency rate, complications, stricture recurrence and mortality were extracted.

Definitions

  • Stenting time: the time between stent placement and removal. Stenting time in patients treated with uSEMS was defined as the time between stent placement and the moment that further treatment was indicated because of stent obstruction.

  • Technical success: technically successful stent placement.

  • Clinical success: no need for further treatment after stent placement, relief of symptoms and/or significant decrease in bilirubin level after stent placement.

  • Complication: adverse event after stent placement, such as cholangitis, pancreatitis, stent migration or hemorrhage.

  • Mortality: procedure-related and stent-related death.

Statistics

The following data were pooled using a fixed effect model: stenting time, technical success rate, clinical success rate, complications and mortality. The number of patients with a single plastic stent, multiple plastic stents and uSEMS were plotted against clinical and technical success rates, resulting in funnel plots, a statistical method used for assessing publication bias [19]. If publication bias is not present, a funnel plot is expected to be roughly symmetrical. The underlying idea is that studies with the largest number of patients estimate clinical and technical success rates more accurately than studies with fewer patients. As it may be difficult to establish publication bias by visual inspection [20], we used the Mann-Whitney U test and Spearman's rank correlation test to determine a correlation between technical and clinical success rates per stent type and the number of patients. A p-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. SPSS software, version 15, (Inc., Chicago, Illinois, USA) was used to perform the statistical analysis.

Results

Study types

From the 47 selected studies, data on outcome of biliary stenting in 1116 patients were extracted (Table 1, 2). Of these, 24 studies reported on single plastic stents [2, 2142], 6 on multiple plastic stents [4348] and17 on uSEMS [15, 16, 4963]. A single plastic stent was compared with multiple plastic stents in one non-randomized study [64]. The remaining studies were all case series, of which 33 were retrospective[16, 2129, 31, 3537, 39, 4144, 47, 4951, 5355, 59, 60, 62, 64] and 14 prospective in design[15, 30, 32, 34, 38, 40, 45, 48, 52, 5658, 61, 63]
Table 1

Case series with uncovered SEMS (uSEMS) for benign biliary strictures

Author

Year

N

Age (years (range))

Women

Intervention

Route

Etiology stricture

Location obstruction

Prospective studies

        

Yamaguchi et al [63]

2006

8

median 65,7 (42-78)

0

Streckerstent (2)

ERCP

chronic pancreatitis

CBD

O Brien et al [58]

1998

8

median 59 (26-88)

unknown

Wallstent

ERCP

postoperative/endoscopic (5)

hilair (3)

       

chronic pancreatitis (2)

proximal (5)

       

idiopathic (1)

 

Deviere et al [15]

1994

20

mean 45 (27-61)

4

Wallstent

ERCP

chronic pancreatitis

CBD

Mygind et al (75)

1993

2

unknown

2

Z stent

PTC

post operative

CBD (1)

        

CBD and anastomosis (1)

Maccioni et al [56]

1992

18

mean 60 (22-76)

8

Z stent (17)

PTC

post operative

anastomosis (13)

     

Wallstent (1)

  

CBD (5)

Foerster et al [52]

1991

7

median 60 (49-80)

5

Wallstent

ERCP (6)

postoperative

anastomosis (2)

      

PTC (1)

 

CBD (5)

        

hepatoduodenal fistel (1)

Retrospective studies

        

van Berkel et al [62]

2004

13

mean 56 (40-79)

4

Wallstent

ERCP

chronic pancreatitis

CBD

Roumilhac et al [60]

2003

12

unknown

unknown

Metal stent (12)

ERCP

post OLT

anastomosis (11)

Eickhoff et al [51]

2003

6

median 38 (29-60)

1

Wallstent

ERCP

chronic pancreatitis

CBD

Kahl et al [55]

2002

3

mean 48 (21-81)

1

Wallstent (3)

ERCP

chronic pancreatitis

CBD

Bonnel et al [49]

1997

25

mean 64 (35-86)

13

Z stent

PTC

postoperative

CBD (8)

        

anastomosis (17)

Rieber et al [59]

1996

8

mean 42 (17-66)

3

Palmaz stent

PTC

post OLT

anastomosis (5)

        

nonanastomotis (3)

Hausegger et al [53]

1996

20

mean 62 (36-83)

7

Wallstent

PTC

chronic pancreatitis (7)

anastomosis (4)

       

fibrous papillary stenosis (2)

CBD (16)

       

psc (1)

 
       

post operative (10)

 

Chu et al [50]

1994

2

unknown

unknown

Z stent

PTC

post operative

hilair (1)

        

CBD (1)

Ivancev et al [54]

1992

2

66 and 41

2

Z stent

PTC

post operative

anastomosis (1)

        

CBD (1)

Rossi et al [16]

1990

17

mean 60 (22-76)

7

Z stent

PTC

postoperative

anastomosis (13)

        

CBD (4)

Table 2

Case series with multiple plastic stents and single plastic stents for benign biliary strictures

Author

Year

N

Age (years (range))

Women

Intervention

Route

Etiology stricture

Location obstruction

Prospective studies

        

Holt et al [32]

2007

53

48,5 (37-61)

32

single plastic stent

ERCP

post OLT

anastomosis

Graziadei et al [30]

2006

84

53,5

21

single plastic stent

ERCP

post OLT

anastomosis (65)

        

non anastomosis (19)

Pozsar et al [48]

2005

20

mean 61,3 (36-81)

18

multiple plastic stents

ERCP

post sphincterectomy

distal CBD

Kuzela et al [45]

2005

43

mean 50,3 (37-82)

25

multiple plastic stents

ERCP

post operative

hilair

Kahl et al [34]

2003

61

median 47 (21-81)

15

single plastic stent

ERCP

chronic pancreatitis (61)

CBD

Tocchi et al [38]

2000

20

mean 57

10

single plastic stent

ERCP

post operative

CBD (3)

        

hilair (17)

van Milligen et al [40]

1997

16

median 43 (17-69)

8

single plastic stent

ERCP

psc

CBD (10)

        

hiliar (6)

Retrospective studies

        

Pasha et al [47]

2007

25

mean 46,7 (28-59)

4

multiple plastic stents

ERCP

post OLT

anastomosis

Elmi et al [28]

2007

15

52 year (42-68)

9

single plastic stent

ERCP

post OLT

anastomosis

Akay et al [21]

2006

11

42 (17-60)

6

single plastic stent

ERCP

post OLT

anastomosis

Sharma et al [37]

2006

8

median 42 (20-61)

3

single plastic stent

ERCP

idiopathic

CBD (6)

        

hilair (2)

Alazmi et al [22]

2006

143

unknown

unknown

single plastic stent

ERCP

post OLT

anastomosis

Zoepf et al [42]

2005

7

median 55 (45-65)

unknown

single plastic stent

ERCP

post OLT

anastomosis

Cahen et al [25]

2005

58

median 54 (19-85)

10

single plastic stent

ERCP

chronic pancreatitis

CBD

Catalano et al [64]

2004

46

mean 48 (30-71)

11

1 plastic stent (34)

ERCP

chronic pancreatitis

CBD

     

multiple plastic stents (12)

   

Morelli et al [46]

2003

25

mean 48 (18-72)

9

multiple plastic stents

 

post OLT

anastomosis

Hisatsune et al [31]

2003

19

45 (14-67)

9

single plastic stent

ERCP

post OLT

anastomosis

Eickhoff et al [27]

2001

39

mean 54,7 (32-81)

7

single plastic stent

ERCP

chronic pancreatitis (39)

CBD

Bourke et al [43]

2000

6

mean 53 (20-64)

3

multiple plastic stents

ERCP

post sphyncterectomy

ampullary

Khandekar et al [44]

2000

17

median 50 (17-68)

13

multiple plastic stents

ERCP

post sphyncterectomy (10)

CBD (14)

       

papillotomy (2)

other (3)

       

post operative (3)

 

Vitale et al [41]

2000

25

mean 46,7 (36-89)

7

single plastic stent

ERCP

chronic pancreatitis

CBD

Kiehne et al [35]

2000

14

(36-89)

2

single plastic stent

 

chronic pancreatitis

CBD

Farnbacher et al [29]

2000

31

50 (24-71)

3

single plastic stent

ERCP

chronic pancreatitis

CBD

Rossi et al [36]

1998

15

mean 44 (28-55)

6

single plastic stent

ERCP

post OLT (15)

anastomosis

De Masi et al [26]

1998

53

unknown

unknown

single plastic stent

ERCP

iatrogenic (39)

CBD (20)

       

gallstones (8)

hilair (30)

Aru et al [23]

1997

8

mean 44

7

single plastic stent

ERCP

post operative

CBD (7)

        

hilair (1)

van Milligen et al [39]

1996

25

median 42 (21-74)

13

single plastic stent

ERCP

psc

CBD (19)

        

hilair (3)

Itani et al [33]

1995

5

unknown

unknown

single plastic stent

ERCP

chronic pancreatitis

CBD

Barthet et al [24]

1994

19

mean 49

1

single plastic stent

ERCP

chronic pancreatitis

CBD

Deviere et al [2]

1990

25

mean 42 (34-69)

1

single plastic stent

ERCP

chronic pancreatitis

CBD

Patients

Fourty seven studies evaluated 786 patients treated with a single plastic stent (7-11.5 Fr.), 148 with multiple plastic stents (10-11.5 Fr.) and 182 with uSEMS.

Indications for stent placement included a biliary stricture secondary to liver transplantation (n = 417, 37%), chronic pancreatitis (n = 380, 34%), surgery (n = 170, 16%), and other causes (n = 149,13%).

Most strictures were located in the CBD (47%), followed by anastomotic strictures (40%), hilar strictures (11%) and other locations (2%) (Table 3, 4).
Table 3

Results on route, previous treatment, treatment time, technical success, clinical success and complications in case series with uncovered SEMS (uSEMS) for benign biliary strictures

Author

Intervention

Follow up (range)

Previous treatment

Technical success

Clinical succes

Treatment time Stentpatency

Total complications

Prospective studies

       

Yamaguchi et al [63]

Streckerstent (2)

> 5 years (7.4 year)

plastic stent placement

100%

62,50%

unknown

25%

 

Wallstent (6)

      

O Brien et al [58]

Wallstent

mean 64,5 months (26-81)

plastic stent placement (5)

100%

unknown

median 35 months (7-57)

75

Tesdal et al [69]

Wallstent (11)

mean 63,8 months

balloon dilatation (19)

100%

unknown

mean 30,2 months

64,50%

 

Palmazstent (9)

median 80,5 (2-116)

     
 

Streckerstent(4)

      

Deviere et al [15]

Wallstent

mean 33 months (24-42)

plastic stent placement (11)

100%

90%

3 and 6 months (2/20)

10

Mygind et al (75)

Z stent

4 and 7 months

balloon dilatation

100%

100%

unknown

unknown

Maccioni et al [56]

Z stent (17)

mean 37 months (30-41)

percutaneous dilatation

83,30%

55,50%

unknown

38,80%

 

Wallstent (1)

      

Foerster et al [52]

Wallstent

mean 32,7 weeks (21-53)

laparotomy (2)

100%

100%

8 months until now

14%

Retrospective studies

       

van Berkel et al [62]

Wall stent

mean 50 months (6 d -86 months)

none

100%

69%

60 months

15,40%

Roumhilac et al [60]

SEMS (12)

median 37 months (18-53)

plastic stent treatment for 1 year

100%

100%

no stent obstruction

unknown

Eickhoff et al [51]

Wallstent

median 58 months (22-29)

plastic stent placement

100%

unknown

median 20 months (10-38)

83,40%

Kahl et al [55]

Wallstent (3)

median 37 months (18-53)

plastic stent treatment for 1 year

100%

100%

no stent obstruction

unknown

Bonnel et al [49]

Z stent

mean 55 months (9-84)

surgery (17)

18 one approach

72%

 

36%

   

T tube (8)

7 two approaches

   

Rieber et al [59]

Palmaz stent

mean 18 months (1,5-43)

balloon dilatation

100%

 

62% occlusion

 
   

post PTBD

  

occlussion time

1,5-2,5-24 months

 

Hausegger et al [53]

Walsltent

mean 31,2 months (3-78)

balloon dilatation

100%

unknown

73% (6 months)

50,00%

      

38% (36 months)

 
      

19% (end follow up)

 
      

3-3-3-4-5-11-24-2-36-55

 

Chu et al [50]

Z stent

unknown

plastic stents

unknown

 

0%

 
   

PTBD

    

Ivancev et al [54]

Z stent (2)

9 and 14 months

balloon dilatation

100%

50%

50% (5 months)

50%

Rossi et al [16]

Z stent

mean 8 months (4-12)

baloon dilatition

100%

82,40%

unknown

11,80%

Table 4

Results on route, previous treatment, treatment time, technical success, clinical success and complications in case series with multiple plastic stents and single plastic stents for benign biliary strictures

Author

Intervention

Follow up (range)

Previous treatment

Technical success

Clinical succes

Treatment time

Stentpatency

Total complications

Prospective studies

       

Holt et al [32]

single plastic stent

18 months

balloon dilatation

92%

69%

11,3 months (7-14)

69,70%

Graziadei et al [30]

single plastic stent

mean 39,8 (0,3-98)

balloon dilatation

unknown

77% anastomosis

unknown

5-424 procedures

     

0% non anastomosis

  

Pozsar et al [48]

multiple stent placement

mean 61,3 (36-81)

dilatation

unknown

90%

median 9 months (3-22)

37,70%

Kuzela et al [45]

multiple stent placement

median 16 months (1-42)

none

100%

100%

1 year

12%

  

after stent placement

   

(planned)

 

Tocchi et al [38]

single plastic stent

mean 89,7 months

none

100%

80%

unknown

0%

Kahl et al [34]

single plastic stent

median 40 months (18-66)

none

100%

31,1% (1 year)

1 year (19)

34,40%

     

26,2% (40 months)

rest unknown

 

van Milligen et al [40]

single plastic stent

median 19 months (7-27)

none

100%

81%

median 9 days

7%

Retrospective studies

       

Pasha et al [47]

multiple plastic stent

median 21,5 months (5,4-31,2)

diliatation

unknown

88% (intend to treat)

median 4,6 months (1,1-11,9)

27%

Elmi et al [28]

single plastic stent

535 days (22-1301)

balloondilatation

Unknown

87%

192 days (18-944)

22,2% (procedure)

   

sphincterectomy

    

Akay et al [21]

single plastic stent

22 months (SD 13 months)

balloondilatation

75%

55%

3 months (6)

12%

      

6 months (1)

 
      

9 months (1)

 
      

12 months (3)

 

Sharma et al [37]

single plastic stent

median 19 months (4-52)

balloondilatation

100%

100%

median 19 months

18%

Alazmi et al [22]

single plastic stent

mean 28 months (1-114)

balloondilatation

6,60%

82%

unknown

unknown

Zoepf et al [42]

single plastic stent

median 9,5 months (1-36)

sometimes dilatation

100%

85,60%

median 8 months (2-26)

18,60%

Cahen et al [25]

single plastic stent

median 45 months (0-182)

sphincterectomy

100%

38%

median 274 days (3-2706)

52%

   

pancreatic duct stenting

    

Catalano et al [64]

single plastic stent (34)

mean 4,2 years (1 plastic stent)

unknown

100%

24% 1 stent

21 months

42,7% (single plastic stent)

 

multiple plastic stent (12)

mean 3,9 years (mulitple stents)

  

92% multiple stents

14 months

8,3% (multiple plastic stent)

Morelli et al [46]

multiple plastic stent

mean 54 weeks (5 wks - 103 mo)

diliatation

88%

90%

unknown

3,70%

Hisatsune et al [34]

single plastic stent

mean 26 months(15-44)

none

79%

93%

mean 637 days (487-933)

43%

Eickhoff et al [31]

single plastic stent

median 58 months (2-146)

balloon dilatation

100%

31%

mean 9 months (1-144)

43%

   

nasobiliary drainage

    

Bourke et al [43]

multiple plastic stent

median 26,5 months (24-32)

dilatation

unknown

100%

median 12,5 months

33%

Author

Intervention

Follow up (range)

Previous treatment

Technical success

Clinical succes

Treatment time

Stentpatency

Total complications

Khandekar et al [44]

multiple plastic stent

median 720 days

sometimes dilatation

Unknown

100%

median 140 days (30-1080)

unknown

Vitale et al [41]

single plastic stent

32 months (13-76)

balloon dilatation

Unknown

80%

mean 13,3 months

unknown

Khiene et al [35]

single plastic stent

1-5 years

none

100%

7,40%

unknown

85,70%

Farnbacher et al [29]

single plastic stent

24 months (2-76)

none

100%

13%

24 months (2-76 months)

72%

Rossi et al [36]

single plastic stent

1 year

dilatation

100%

83,30%

1 year

33,30%

De Masi et al [26]

single plastic stent

6-84 months

unknown

Unknown

71,40%

24 months

52,70%

Aru et al [23]

single plastic stent

unknown

unknown

100%

25%

unknown

unknown

van Millegen et al [39]

single plastic stent

mean 29 months (2-120)

dilatation

nasobiliary drain

84%

76%

1 stent period (17)

30,5%(procedure)

      

2 stent period (2)

 
      

3 stent period (3)

 

Itani et al [33]

single plastic stent

mean 7 months

dilatation

100%

80%

4 months (2)

unknown

      

1 change 4 months (2)

 
      

15 months (1)

 

Barthet et al [24]

single plastic stent

mean 18 months (13-48)

none

100%

42%

mean 10 months

10,50%

Deviere et al [2]

single plastic stent

mean 14 months (4-72)

dilatation

100%

12%

unknown

72%

In the majority of patients with chronic pancreatitis, a single plastic stent was placed (85%), followed by uSEMS (15%) and multiple plastic stents (0%). Similarly, single plastic stents were placed in 82% of patients with a biliary stricture after liver transplantation, followed by uSEMS (22%) and multiple plastic stents (13%). In patients with a biliary stricture after a surgical procedure uSEMS (50%) were placed most frequently followed by multiple plastic stents (35%) and a single plastic stent (15%).

Comparison between different stent types

The median stenting time was not different between multiple plastic stents (11.3 (range 4.6-13) months) and single plastic stents (10.5 (0.3-24) months). Median stenting time was 20 (4.5-60) months for uSEMS.

The technical success rate was not different between different stent types (98,9% for uSEMS and 94.8% for single plastic stents, 94.0% for multiple plastic stents) (Figure 2).
https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1471-230X-9-96/MediaObjects/12876_2009_Article_388_Fig2_HTML.jpg
Figure 2

Technical success of uncovered SEMS (uSEMS), multiple plastic stents and single plastic stents for benign biliary strictures.

The clinical success rate for all patients was highest after placement of multiple plastic stents (94,3%) followed by uSEMS (79.5%) and single plastic stents (59,6%) (Figure 3). Clinical success rate in chronic pancreatitis patients was highest for uSEMS (80.4%) and lowest for single plastic stents (35.9%). Multiple plastic stents had the best clinical performance for strictures following liver transplantation (89.0%) and surgery (81.3%), whereas uSEMS (69% and 62.3%, respectively) showed the worst clinical results in these situations (Table 5).
https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1471-230X-9-96/MediaObjects/12876_2009_Article_388_Fig3_HTML.jpg
Figure 3

Clinical success of uncovered SEMS (uSEMS), multiple plastic stents and single plastic stents for benign biliary strictures.

Table 5

Overview of technical and clinical success of uncovered SEMS (uSEMS), multiple plastic stents and single plastic stents for benign biliary strictures

 

Single plastic stent

 

USEMS

 

Multiple plastic stents

 
 

Technical success

Clinical success

Technical success

Clinical success

Technical success

Clinical success

 

(mean)

(mean)

(mean)

(mean)

(mean)

(mean)

All indications

94,10%

61.3%

98,50%

62,40%

97,60%

87,50%

Post operative

86,6,%

64,90%

97,60%

59,60%

100

87,60%

Chronic pancreatitis

100%

36,60%

100%

80,40%

NA

NA

Post OLT

97,20%

81%

100%

50%

88%

89%

Complications occurred most frequently with uSEMS (39.5%), followed by a single plastic stent (36.0%) and multiple plastic stents (20.3%) (Figure 4). The most frequently reported complications included cholangitis, pancreatitis, stent migration and hemorrhage.
https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1471-230X-9-96/MediaObjects/12876_2009_Article_388_Fig4_HTML.jpg
Figure 4

Complications of uncovered SEMS (uSEMS), multiple plastic stents and single plastic stents for benign biliary strictures.

No stent-related mortality was reported with placement of multiple plastic stents, whereas 7 (0.9%) patients died as a consequence of single plastic stent placement. Following uSEMS placement, 2 (1.1%) patients died of a stent-related cause. In all these cases, the cause of death was a septic complication due to cholangitis.

Publication bias

Plotting the total number of patients with uSEMS against technical and clinical success showed that publication bias was not present (Figure 5). This was confirmed with Spearman's rank correlation test for technical (r-0.218, p = 0.435) and clinical success (r-0.089, p = 0.796) against the number of included patients. The same was found when technical success and clinical success rates in publications with ≤ 8 or >8 patients were compared (p = 0.414 and p = 0.779, respectively).
https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1471-230X-9-96/MediaObjects/12876_2009_Article_388_Fig5_HTML.jpg
Figure 5

Numbers of patients with a benign biliary stricture vs. reported results for technical success (a) and clinical success (b) of uncovered self-expanding metal stent placement.

We also plotted the number of patients with a single plastic stent against technical and clinical success and again found no evidence of publication bias (Figure 6). Similarly, no evidence of bias was found when the clinical success in publications with ≤ 20 or >20 included patients were compared (p = 0.065). For clinical success, this was confirmed with Spearman's rank correlation test (r-0.343, p = 0.109). For technical success, however, Spearman's rank correlation test suggested publication bias (r-0.046, p = 0.109). On the other hand, no evidence of bias was found when publications with ≤ 20 or >20 patients were compared (p = 0.303).
https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1471-230X-9-96/MediaObjects/12876_2009_Article_388_Fig6_HTML.jpg
Figure 6

Numbers of patients with a benign biliary stricture vs. reported results for technical success (a) and clinical success (b) of single plastic stent placement.

As the number of publications on multiple plastic stents (n = 6) in benign biliary stricture was low, it was not possible to make funnel plots for this stent type.

Discussion

This review shows that the most optimal nonsurgical treatment of benign extrahepatic biliary strictures has been demonstrated with multiple plastic stent placement. These results confirm that dilation with a large diameter dilator, i.e. multiple plastic stents, for a prolonged period is the most effective way to relieve benign strictures. It is however important to note that these results were mainly based on case series with often small patient numbers included.

Complication rates were also lowest for multiple plastic stents, followed by single plastic stents and uSEMS. The low complication rate of multiple plastic stents is most likely due to the practice of exchanging multiple plastic stents at 3-months intervals. This was found to be uncommon after single plastic stent placement. In the latter, cholangitis as a result of stent clogging occurred more frequently. Due to their larger luminal diameter, placement of uSEMS seems an attractive alternative for single or multiple plastic stents in benign biliary strictures, however uSEMS have the disadvantage that tissue hyperplasia through uncovered stent meshes may occur, leading to stent obstruction [15, 16, 65]. Based on clinical success and complication rates, placement of multiple plastic stents has therefore still the best treatment profile for treatment of benign biliary strictures.

Our findings are in line with results of stent placement for specific causes of benign biliary obstruction, particularly those following liver transplantation or a surgical procedure. Only for patients with strictures due to chronic pancreatitis, uSEMS were found to give good results with regard to clinical success. The number of studies that included patients with this indication and were treated with multiple plastic stents was low. The reason for this is likely that biliary obstruction due to chronic pancreatitis often has a protracted course, requiring multiple procedures if plastic stents are used [66].

An exception to the overall poor results of endoscopic treatment with single plastic stents in patients with chronic pancreatitis was reported by Vitale et al. [41], who achieved stricture resolution with single plastic stents in 80% of patients. Calcifications in the pancreatic head were found in only 4 of 25 patients in this study, which may well explain the high success rate. Calcifications in the pancreatic head have been suggested to be a strong predictor of failure of CBD stenting [34]. As these calcifications are often associated with a firm fibrotic component due to the inflammatory reaction in chronic pancreatitis [67], it can be expected that these strictures are more difficult to dilate. Patients with chronic pancreatitis but without calcifications are more likely to have a stricture secondary to edema and to have less pronounced fibrosis. These strictures may subside over time and therefore only require temporary treatment. This explains why single plastic stent placement for CBD strictures in this patient category was found to be successful (78).

It should be noted that the disappointing results of uSEMS placement, particularly in patients with biliary strictures following liver transplantation or a surgical procedure, are probably affected by selection bias. In most studies, the included population consisted of patients in whom the initial treatment, mostly plastic stent placement, had already failed. As a consequence, these patients were probably more difficult to treat and less responsive to dilation.

We found that the median stenting time was not different between multiple and single plastic stent placement (11.3 vs.10.5 months, respectively).uSEMS functioned clinically well for a median time of 20 months (0.5-60) before a reintervention, mostly for stent obstruction, was needed. Reported reinterventions included placement of a new stent within the occluded uSEMS, percutaneous biliary drainage, endoscopic removal of sludge, or surgical or endoscopic removal of the stent.

A problem with uSEMS is that they tend to embed into the mucosa of the CBD, leading to mucosal hyperplasia. This is an unwanted side effect, as removal of uSEMS in this situation is difficult, if not impossible. Removal may however be indicated when uSEMS are malpositioned or obstructed, or have (partially) migrated [18, 68]. Recently, cSEMS have been introduced. These devices have the benefit that removal is possible as the risk of embedding into the biliary wall is reduced or even negligible. This capacity combined with the larger diameter of cSEMS makes stepwise dilation, as is performed with multiple plastic stents, unnecessary and may thus reduce the number of procedures [69]. The clinical experience with cSEMS for benign biliary strictures is until now only limited [66, 69, 69]. cSEMS can achieve a luminal diameter that is comparable to that of multiple plastic stents and uSEMS, but due to their covering have the advantage that fewer procedures for recurrent obstruction are required. In the future, cSEMS are likely to be a more patient-friendly and cost-effective treatment option for benign biliary strictures. Until now, cSEMS placement for benign biliary strictures is still associated with relatively high complication rates (39.6%) [66, 69, 69]. In our opinion, new covered stents and refinements of existing covered stents are needed before large scale introduction of cSEMS for this indication can be recommended.

This review has several limitations which should be taken into account before concluding that a particular stent type is favorable in patients with a benign biliary stricture. First, no randomized trials and only one comparative trial have been conducted. This may be due to the fact that (multiple) plastic stents have an acceptable technical and clinical success rate in daily clinical practice. Moreover, uSEMS placement has not been shown to be more successful than multiple plastic stents in case series.

Secondly, several types of plastic stents were used in different studies. Results on individual plastic stent types in patients with benign biliary strictures are not available. From trials in patients with malignant biliary strictures, it is however known that different plastic stents types have varying luminal patencies, due to the stent material and/or the stent diameter [7073]. Particularly, plastic stents with a diameter of 10 French (Fr.) have been shown to be remain patent for a significantly longer period than 8 Fr. stents (median 32 vs. 12 weeks) [71].

Finally, there was a wide variety in treatment protocols in the various studies with plastic stents. In some studies, stent exchange was performed at 3-month intervals, while in other studies stents were only exchanged when they became occluded. Besides, the number of plastic stents used for multiple stenting varied between 2 and 4 among patients. This could both have affected clinical success rates, but also complication rates in patients treated with plastic stents.

The strength of this review is that all available data on the use of plastic stents and SEMS for the treatment of biliary strictures was evaluated. To the best of our knowledge, this is the largest review on the use of different types of stents in patients with a benign biliary stricture, with pooled data on 1116 treated patients. We also showed that the reported results, particularly those of single plastic stents and uSEMS, were not affected by publication bias, making an overestimation of the clinical success rate and/or an underestimation of the complication rate of a particular stent type unlikely.

Conclusion

In conclusion, this systematic review shows that, based on clinical success and risk of complications, placement of multiple plastic stents is currently the best choice. The evolving role of cSEMS placement as a more patient friendly and cost effective treatment for benign biliary strictures needs further elucidation. There is a need for RCTs comparing different stent types for this indication.

Declarations

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University Medical Center Utrecht

References

  1. Lillemoe KD, Melton GB, Cameron JL, Pitt HA, Campbell KA, Talamini MA, et al: Postoperative bile duct strictures: management and outcome in the 1990s. Ann Surg. 2000, 232 (3): 430-41. 10.1097/00000658-200009000-00015.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  2. Deviere J, Devaere S, Baize M, Cremer M: Endoscopic biliary drainage in chronic pancreatitis. Gastrointest Endosc. 1990, 36 (2): 96-100. 10.1016/S0016-5107(90)70959-5.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Judah JR, Draganov PV: Endoscopic therapy of benign biliary strictures. World J Gastroenterol. 2007, 13 (26): 3531-9.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  4. Warshaw AL, Schapiro RH, Ferrucci JT, Galdabini JJ: Persistent obstructive jaundice, cholangitis, and biliary cirrhosis due to common bile duct stenosis in chronic pancreatitis. Gastroenterology. 1976, 70 (4): 562-7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Roslyn JJ, Ferdinand FD: Biliary strictures and neoplasms. Current therapy in gastroenterology and liver disease. 1994, 613-8. 4Google Scholar
  6. Davids PH, Rauws EA, Coene PP, Tytgat GN, Huibregtse K: Endoscopic stenting for post-operative biliary strictures. Gastrointest Endosc. 1992, 38 (1): 12-8. 10.1016/S0016-5107(92)70323-X.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Dumonceau JM, Deviere J, Delhaye M, Baize M, Cremer M: Plastic and metal stents for postoperative benign bile duct strictures: the best and the worst. Gastrointest Endosc. 1998, 47 (1): 8-17. 10.1016/S0016-5107(98)70292-5.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Geenen DJ, Geenen JE, Hogan WJ, Schenck J, Venu RP, Johnson GK, et al: Endoscopic therapy for benign bile duct strictures. Gastrointest Endosc. 1989, 35 (5): 367-71. 10.1016/S0016-5107(89)72836-4.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Huibregtse K, Katon RM, Tytgat GN: Endoscopic treatment of postoperative biliary strictures. Endoscopy. 1986, 18 (4): 133-7. 10.1055/s-2007-1018353.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Smith MT, Sherman S, Lehman GA: Endoscopic management of benign strictures of the biliary tree. Endoscopy. 1995, 27 (3): 253-66. 10.1055/s-2007-1005681.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Smits ME, Rauws EA, van Gulik TM, Gouma DJ, Tytgat GN, Huibregtse K: Long-term results of endoscopic stenting and surgical drainage for biliary stricture due to chronic pancreatitis. Br J Surg. 1996, 83 (6): 764-8. 10.1002/bjs.1800830612.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Vitale GC, George M, McIntyre K, Larson GM, Wieman TJ: Endoscopic management of benign and malignant biliary strictures. Am J Surg. 1996, 171 (6): 553-7. 10.1016/S0002-9610(96)00031-1.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Bergman JJ, Burgemeister L, Bruno MJ, Rauws EA, Gouma DJ, Tytgat GN, et al: Long-term follow-up after biliary stent placement for postoperative bile duct stenosis. Gastrointest Endosc. 2001, 54 (2): 154-61.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Davids PH, Groen AK, Rauws EA, Tytgat GN, Huibregtse K: Randomised trial of self-expanding metal stents versus polyethylene stents for distal malignant biliary obstruction. Lancet. 1992, 340 (8834-8835): 1488-92. 10.1016/0140-6736(92)92752-2.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Deviere J, Cremer M, Baize M, Love J, Sugai B, Vandermeeren A: Management of common bile duct stricture caused by chronic pancreatitis with metal mesh self expandable stents. Gut. 1994, 35 (1): 122-6. 10.1136/gut.35.1.122.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  16. Rossi P, Bezzi M, Salvatori FM, Maccioni F, Porcaro ML: Recurrent benign biliary strictures: management with self-expanding metallic stents. Radiology. 1990, 175 (3): 661-5.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. van Berkel AM, Cahen DL, van Westerloo DJ, Rauws EA, Huibregtse K, Bruno MJ: Self-expanding metal stents in benign biliary strictures due to chronic pancreatitis. Endoscopy. 2004, 36 (5): 381-4. 10.1055/s-2004-814319.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Kahaleh M, Tokar J, Le T, Yeaton P: Removal of self-expandable metallic Wallstents. Gastrointest Endosc. 2004, 60 (4): 640-4. 10.1016/S0016-5107(04)01959-5.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Egger M, Davey SG, Schneider M, Minder C: Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ. 1997, 315 (7109): 629-34.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  20. Terrin N, Schmid CH, Lau J: In an empirical evaluation of the funnel plot, researchers could not visually identify publication bias. J Clin Epidemiol. 2005, 58 (9): 894-901. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.01.006.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Akay S, Karasu Z, Ersoz G, Kilic M, Akyildiz M, Gunsar F, et al: Results of endoscopic management of anastomotic biliary strictures after orthotopic liver transplantation. Turk J Gastroenterol. 2006, 17 (3): 159-63.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Alazmi WM, Fogel EL, Watkins JL, McHenry L, Tector JA, Fridell J, et al: Recurrence rate of anastomotic biliary strictures in patients who have had previous successful endoscopic therapy for anastomotic narrowing after orthotopic liver transplantation. Endoscopy. 2006, 38 (6): 571-4. 10.1055/s-2006-925027.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Aru GM, Davis CR, Elliott NL, Morris SJ: Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in the treatment of bile leaks and bile duct strictures after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. South Med J. 1997, 90 (7): 705-8. 10.1097/00007611-199707000-00011.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Barthet M, Bernard JP, Duval JL, Affriat C, Sahel J: Biliary stenting in benign biliary stenosis complicating chronic calcifying pancreatitis. Endoscopy. 1994, 26 (7): 569-72. 10.1055/s-2007-1009041.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Cahen DL, van Berkel AM, Oskam D, Rauws EA, Weverling GJ, Huibregtse K, et al: Long-term results of endoscopic drainage of common bile duct strictures in chronic pancreatitis. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2005, 17 (1): 103-8. 10.1097/00042737-200501000-00019.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. De Masi ME, Fiori E, Lamazza A, Ansali A, Monardo F, Lutzu SE, et al: Endoscopy in the treatment of benign biliary strictures. Ital J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 1998, 30 (1): 91-5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Eickhoff A, Jakobs R, Leonhardt A, Eickhoff JC, Riemann JF: Endoscopic stenting for common bile duct stenoses in chronic pancreatitis: results and impact on long-term outcome. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2001, 13 (10): 1161-7. 10.1097/00042737-200110000-00007.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Elmi F, Silverman WB: Outcome of ERCP in the management of duct-to-duct anastomotic strictures in orthotopic liver transplant. Dig Dis Sci. 2007, 52 (9): 2346-50. 10.1007/s10620-006-9142-0.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Farnbacher MJ, Rabenstein T, Ell C, Hahn EG, Schneider HT: Is endoscopic drainage of common bile duct stenoses in chronic pancreatitis up-to-date?. Am J Gastroenterol. 2000, 95 (6): 1466-71. 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2000.02078.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Graziadei IW, Schwaighofer H, Koch R, Nachbaur K, Koenigsrainer A, Margreiter R, et al: Long-term outcome of endoscopic treatment of biliary strictures after liver transplantation. Liver Transpl. 2006, 12 (5): 718-25. 10.1002/lt.20644.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Hisatsune H, Yazumi S, Egawa H, Asada M, Hasegawa K, Kodama Y, et al: Endoscopic management of biliary strictures after duct-to-duct biliary reconstruction in right-lobe living-donor liver transplantation. Transplantation. 2003, 76 (5): 810-5. 10.1097/01.TP.0000083224.00756.8F.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Holt AP, Thorburn D, Mirza D, Gunson B, Wong T, Haydon G: A prospective study of standardized nonsurgical therapy in the management of biliary anastomotic strictures complicating liver transplantation. Transplantation. 2007, 84 (7): 857-63. 10.1097/01.tp.0000282805.33658.ce.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Itani KM, Taylor TV: The challenge of therapy for pancreatitis-related common bile duct stricture. Am J Surg. 1995, 170 (6): 543-6. 10.1016/S0002-9610(99)80012-9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Kahl S, Zimmermann S, Genz I, Glasbrenner B, Pross M, Schulz HU, et al: Risk factors for failure of endoscopic stenting of biliary strictures in chronic pancreatitis: a prospective follow-up study. Am J Gastroenterol. 2003, 98 (11): 2448-53. 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2003.08667.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Kiehne K, Folsch UR, Nitsche R: High complication rate of bile duct stents in patients with chronic alcoholic pancreatitis due to noncompliance. Endoscopy. 2000, 32 (5): 377-80. 10.1055/s-2000-9004.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Rossi AF, Grosso C, Zanasi G, Gambitta P, Bini M, De CL, et al: Long-term efficacy of endoscopic stenting in patients with stricture of the biliary anastomosis after orthotopic liver transplantation. Endoscopy. 1998, 30 (4): 360-6. 10.1055/s-2007-1001283.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Sharma BC, Agarwal N, Agarwal A, Sakhuja P, Sarin SK: Idiopathic benign strictures of the extrahepatic bile duct: results of endoscopic therapy. Digestive Endoscopy. 2006, 277-81. 10.1111/j.1443-1661.2006.00655.x. 18
  38. Tocchi A, Mazzoni G, Liotta G, Costa G, Lepre L, Miccini M, et al: Management of benign biliary strictures: biliary enteric anastomosis vs endoscopic stenting. Arch Surg. 2000, 135 (2): 153-7. 10.1001/archsurg.135.2.153.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. van Milligen de Wit AW, van BJ, Rauws EA, Jones EA, Tytgat GN, Huibregtse K: Endoscopic stent therapy for dominant extrahepatic bile duct strictures in primary sclerosing cholangitis. Gastrointest Endosc. 1996, 44 (3): 293-9. 10.1016/S0016-5107(96)70167-0.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. van Milligen de Wit AW, Rauws EA, van BJ, Mulder CJ, Jones EA, Tytgat GN, et al: Lack of complications following short-term stent therapy for extrahepatic bile duct strictures in primary sclerosing cholangitis. Gastrointest Endosc. 1997, 46 (4): 344-7. 10.1016/S0016-5107(97)70123-8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Vitale GC, Reed DN, Nguyen CT, Lawhon JC, Larson GM: Endoscopic treatment of distal bile duct stricture from chronic pancreatitis. Surg Endosc. 2000, 14 (3): 227-31. 10.1007/s004640030046.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Zoepf T, Maldonado-Lopez EJ, Hilgard P, Schlaak J, Malago M, Broelsch CE, et al: Endoscopic therapy of posttransplant biliary stenoses after right-sided adult living donor liver transplantation. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2005, 3 (11): 1144-9. 10.1016/S1542-3565(05)00850-5.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Bourke MJ, Elfant AB, Alhalel R, Scheider D, Kortan P, Haber GB: Sphincterotomy-associated biliary strictures: features and endoscopic management. Gastrointest Endosc. 2000, 52 (4): 494-9. 10.1067/mge.2000.108970.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Khandekar S, Disario JA: Endoscopic therapy for stenosis of the biliary and pancreatic duct orifices. Gastrointest Endosc. 2000, 52 (4): 500-5. 10.1067/mge.2000.108715.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Kuzela L, Oltman M, Sutka J, Hrcka R, Novotna T, Vavrecka A: Prospective follow-up of patients with bile duct strictures secondary to laparoscopic cholecystectomy, treated endoscopically with multiple stents. Hepatogastroenterology. 2005, 52 (65): 1357-61.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Morelli J, Mulcahy HE, Willner IR, Cunningham JT, Draganov P: Long-term outcomes for patients with post-liver transplant anastomotic biliary strictures treated by endoscopic stent placement. Gastrointest Endosc. 2003, 58 (3): 374-9. 10.1067/S0016-5107(03)00011-7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Pasha SF, Harrison ME, Das A, Nguyen CC, Vargas HE, Balan V, et al: Endoscopic treatment of anastomotic biliary strictures after deceased donor liver transplantation: outcomes after maximal stent therapy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2007, 66 (1): 44-51. 10.1016/j.gie.2007.02.017.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Pozsar J, Sahin P, Laszlo F, Topa L: Endoscopic treatment of sphincterotomy-associated distal common bile duct strictures by using sequential insertion of multiple plastic stents. Gastrointest Endosc. 2005, 62 (1): 85-91. 10.1016/S0016-5107(05)00547-X.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Bonnel DH, Liguory CL, Lefebvre JF, Cornud FE: Placement of metallic stents for treatment of postoperative biliary strictures: long-term outcome in 25 patients. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1997, 169 (6): 1517-22.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Chu KM, Lai EC: Expandable metallic biliary stents. Aust N Z J Surg. 1994, 64 (12): 836-9. 10.1111/j.1445-2197.1994.tb04559.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Eickhoff A, Jakobs R, Leonhardt A, Eickhoff JC, Riemann JF: Self-expandable metal mesh stents for common bile duct stenosis in chronic pancreatitis: retrospective evaluation of long-term follow-up and clinical outcome pilot study. Z Gastroenterol. 2003, 41 (7): 649-54. 10.1055/s-2003-40548.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Foerster EC, Hoepffner N, Domschke W: Bridging of benign choledochal stenoses by endoscopic retrograde implantation of mesh stents. Endoscopy. 1991, 23 (3): 133-5. 10.1055/s-2007-1010639.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Hausegger KA, Kugler C, Uggowitzer M, Lammer J, Karaic R, Klein GE, et al: Benign biliary obstruction: is treatment with the Wallstent advisable?. Radiology. 1996, 200 (2): 437-41.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Ivancev K, Petersen B, Hall L, Ho P, Benner K, Rosch J: Percutaneous hepaticoneojejunostomy and choledochocholedochal reanastomosis using metallic stents: technical note. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 1992, 15 (4): 256-60. 10.1007/BF02733935.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Kahl S, Zimmermann S, Glasbrenner B, Pross M, Schulz HU, McNamara D, et al: Treatment of benign biliary strictures in chronic pancreatitis by self-expandable metal stents. Dig Dis. 2002, 20 (2): 199-203. 10.1159/000067487.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. Maccioni F, Rossi M, Salvatori FM, Ricci P, Bezzi M, Rossi P: Metallic stents in benign biliary strictures: three-year follow-up. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 1992, 15 (6): 360-6. 10.1007/BF02734119.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Mygind T, Hennild V: Expandable metallic endoprostheses for biliary obstruction. Acta Radiol. 1993, 34 (3): 252-7. 10.3109/02841859309175363.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. O'Brien SM, Hatfield AR, Craig PI, Williams SP: A 5-year follow-up of self-expanding metal stents in the endoscopic management of patients with benign bile duct strictures. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 1998, 10 (2): 141-5.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Rieber A, Brambs HJ, Lauchart W: The radiological management of biliary complications following liver transplantation. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 1996, 19 (4): 242-7. 10.1007/BF02577643.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. Roumilhac D, Poyet G, Sergent G, Declerck N, Karoui M, Mathurin P, et al: Long-term results of percutaneous management for anastomotic biliary stricture after orthotopic liver transplantation. Liver Transpl. 2003, 9 (4): 394-400. 10.1053/jlts.2003.50052.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. Tesdal IK, Adamus R, Poeckler C, Koepke J, Jaschke W, Georgi M: Therapy for biliary stenoses and occlusions with use of three different metallic stents: single-center experience. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 1997, 8 (5): 869-79. 10.1016/S1051-0443(97)70676-6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. van Berkel AM, Cahen DL, van Westerloo DJ, Rauws EA, Huibregtse K, Bruno MJ: Self-expanding metal stents in benign biliary strictures due to chronic pancreatitis. Endoscopy. 2004, 36 (5): 381-4. 10.1055/s-2004-814319.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. Yamaguchi T, Ishihara T, Seza K, Nakagawa A, Sudo K, Tawada K, et al: Long-term outcome of endoscopic metallic stenting for benign biliary stenosis associated with chronic pancreatitis. World J Gastroenterol. 2006, 12 (3): 426-30.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  64. Catalano MF, Linder JD, George S, Alcocer E, Geenen JE: Treatment of symptomatic distal common bile duct stenosis secondary to chronic pancreatitis: comparison of single vs. multiple simultaneous stents. Gastrointest Endosc. 2004, 60 (6): 945-52. 10.1016/S0016-5107(04)02275-8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. van Berkel AM, Cahen DL, van Westerloo DJ, Rauws EA, Huibregtse K, Bruno MJ: Self-expanding metal stents in benign biliary strictures due to chronic pancreatitis. Endoscopy. 2004, 36 (5): 381-4. 10.1055/s-2004-814319.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. Cantu P, Hookey LC, Morales A, Le MO, Deviere J: The treatment of patients with symptomatic common bile duct stenosis secondary to chronic pancreatitis using partially covered metal stents: a pilot study. Endoscopy. 2005, 37 (8): 735-9. 10.1055/s-2005-870130.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. Witt H, Apte MV, Keim V, Wilson JS: Chronic pancreatitis: challenges and advances in pathogenesis, genetics, diagnosis, and therapy. Gastroenterology. 2007, 132 (4): 1557-73. 10.1053/j.gastro.2007.03.001.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. Trentino P, Falasco G, d'orta C, Coda S: Endoscopic removal of a metallic biliary stent: case report. Gastrointest Endosc. 2004, 59 (2): 321-3. 10.1016/S0016-5107(03)02685-3.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. Kahaleh M, Behm B, Clarke BW, Brock A, Shami VM, De La Rue SA, et al: Temporary placement of covered self-expandable metal stents in benign biliary strictures: a new paradigm? (with video). Gastrointest Endosc. 2008, 67 (3): 446-54. 10.1016/j.gie.2007.06.057.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. Coene PP, Groen AK, Cheng J, Out MM, Tytgat GN, Huibregtse K: Clogging of biliary endoprostheses: a new perspective. Gut. 1990, 31 (8): 913-7. 10.1136/gut.31.8.913.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  71. Speer AG, Cotton PB, MacRae KD: Endoscopic management of malignant biliary obstruction: stents of 10 French gauge are preferable to stents of 8 French gauge. Gastrointest Endosc. 1988, 34 (5): 412-7. 10.1016/S0016-5107(88)71407-8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. van Berkel AM, van MJ, van VH, Groen AK, Huibregtse K: A scanning electron microscopic study of biliary stent materials. Gastrointest Endosc. 2000, 51 (1): 19-22. 10.1016/S0016-5107(00)70380-4.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. Tringali A, Mutignani M, Perri V, Zuccala G, Cipolletta L, Bianco MA, et al: A prospective, randomized multicenter trial comparing DoubleLayer and polyethylene stents for malignant distal common bile duct strictures. Endoscopy. 2003, 35 (12): 992-7. 10.1055/s-2003-44601.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  74. Pre-publication history

    1. The pre-publication history for this paper can be accessed here:http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-230X/9/96/prepub

Copyright

© van Boeckel et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2009

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Advertisement