4.7 Article

Endoscopic palliation of patients with biliary obstruction caused by nonresectable hilar cholangiocarcinoma: efficacy of self-expandable metallic Wallstents

Journal

GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY
Volume 56, Issue 1, Pages 33-39

Publisher

MOSBY, INC
DOI: 10.1067/mge.2002.125364

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of an endoscopically inserted self-expandable metal stent for treatment of biliary obstruction caused by nonresectable hilar cholangiocarcinoma. Methods: Data on all patients with nonresectable hilar cholangiocarcinoma receiving self-expandable metal stents between January 1990 and April 2000 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients with pseudo Klatskin tumors (metastases in the liver hilum) and gallbladder carcinoma were excluded. Early complications (within 30 days of stent placement), early and late stent occlusion, stent patency, and biliary reintervention rates were recorded. Results: Fifty-two Wallstents were inserted in 36 patients, with 7,13, and 16 having, respectively, Bismuth type I/II, III, and IV lesions. Insertion was successful in 35 of 36 (97%) patients. Complications occurred within the first 30 days after insertion in 5 patients (14%) but did not require biliary reintervention. Thirty-day mortality was 6% (2 deaths). There were 3 early (9%) and 8 late (23%) stent occlusions, bringing the total to 11 patients (31 %) who required biliary reintervention after Wallstent insertion. Median Wallstent patency and patient survival were, respectively, 169 days (95% Cl [154, 184]) and 147 days (95% Cl [106, 188]), with no difference between patients with Bismuth I/II, III, IV type tumors. Conclusions: Wallstent insertion is safe and feasible, and achieves successful palliation without the need for further biliary reintervention in the majority (69%) of patients with nonresectable hilar cholangiocarcinoma.

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