4.7 Article

Risk Factors for Stent Migration into the Abdominal Cavity after Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Hepaticogastrostomy

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE
Volume 10, Issue 14, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/jcm10143111

Keywords

obstructive jaundice; interventional EUS; EUS-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD); EUS-guided hepaticogastrostomy (EUS-HGS); stent migration

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This retrospective study of 48 patients undergoing EUS-HGS found that a longer distance between the stomach and liver increased the risk of stent migration. Ensuring a large proportion of the stent in the stomach is crucial during EUS-HGS procedures.
Background: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided hepaticogastrostomy (EUS-HGS) is becoming increasingly popular. However, the risk factors for stent migration into the abdominal cavity remain unknown. Methods: Forty-eight patients undergoing EUS-HGS with placement of a long, partially covered self-expandable metallic stent (LPC-SEMS) were studied retrospectively to identify risk factors of stent migration. We determined the technical and functional success rates, and recorded adverse events, including stent migration. Results: EUS-HGS was technically successful in all patients. However, stent migration was evident in five patients (one actual and four imminent, 10%). Stent migration into the abdominal cavity was observed in one patient (2%), and the other four cases required additional procedures to prevent migration (8%). Logistic regression analysis revealed that the risk of stent migration increased as the initial (pre-procedure) distance between the stomach and liver at the puncture site increased (p = 0.012). Conclusions: A longer distance between the stomach and liver at the puncture site increased the risk of stent migration. However, during EUS-HGS, it is difficult to adjust the puncture position. It is important to ensure that the proportion of the stent in the stomach is large; the use of a self-anchoring stent may be optimal.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available