4.6 Article

Sequential multistenting protocol in biliary stenosis after liver transplantation: a prospective analysis

Journal

ENDOSCOPY
Volume 51, Issue 12, Pages 1130-1135

Publisher

GEORG THIEME VERLAG KG
DOI: 10.1055/a-0977-3158

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background Biliary complications are a serious source of morbidity after orthotopic and living-related liver transplantation. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiography (ERC) is the gold standard for patients with duct-to-duct anastomosis because it allows a direct approach for interventional procedures. A retrospective study showed results of a sequential multistenting protocol, without stent removal/exchange, with promising results. We conducted a prospective analysis to assess the clinical success, recurrence rate, and adverse event rate related to this protocol. Methods From May 2012 to April 2018, all consecutive patients with a diagnosis of anastomotic stenosis following liver transplantation were enrolled in the study, and were followed for a period of at least 6 months after the last ERC. During the first ERC, a maximum number of plastic stents (10 Fr) were placed. In subsequent ERCs, scheduled every 3 months up to a maximum of 1 year, additional stents were inserted, as many as possible, without removing the previously placed stents. Results From May 2012 to May 2018, 87 patients were included in the study and treated with a sequential multistenting protocol. The mean number of stents placed was 3.7 (SD 1.0). Clinical success (stricture resolution and normalization of cholestasis) was achieved in 86 patients (98.9 %). Seven patients (8.0 %) developed complications. Recurrence was recorded in seven patients (8.0 %) after a mean of 992.7 days (SD 622.1). Conclusions This study represents the first prospective demonstration of the efficacy and safety of a sequential multistenting protocol. A key limitation of the study is the lack of a comparative group treated according to the traditional stent exchange approach.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available