ArticleDigestive diseases and sciences2012
A comparative evaluation of early stent occlusion among biliary conventional versus wing stents.
Article in Digestive diseases and sciences, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Percutaneous intraductal radiofrequency ablation for treatment of biliary stent occlusion: A preliminary result.World journal of gastroenterology · 2017Trial
- Enhanced Endoscopic Internal Drainage of Gastric Abscess Through Additively Manufactured Stents.Advanced healthcare materials · 2026Article
- A randomized trial comparing winged versus conventional plastic stents for malignant bile duct strictures.Endoscopy international open · 2017Article
- Prevention of biliary stent occlusion.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2012Article
- Wing stents versus conventional plastic stents in the biliary tree: imagination in plastic biliary stent designs continues to evolve.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2012Article
- The perfect biliary plastic stent: the search goes on.Annals of gastroenterologyReview
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND STUDY
aimsConventional plastic stents with a lumen typically have limited patency. The lumenless wing stent was engineered to overcome this problem. The objective of this study was to compare the incidence of early stent occlusion (symptomatic occlusion/cholangitis necessitating re-insertion within 90 days) for wing stents and conventional plastic stents. PATIENTS AND
methodsPatients with biliary pathology treated with plastic biliary stenting during the period 2003-2009 comprised the study cohort. Patients who had at least one biliary wing stent placed comprised the wing stent group, whereas patients who underwent only conventional stent plastic placement comprised the conventional stent group. Patients were stratified by indication: benign biliary strictures (group 1), malignant biliary strictures (group 2), or benign biliary non-stricture pathology (group 3). The association of stent type with the occurrence of primary outcome by indication was analyzed by use of multivariable logistic regression.
resultsThree-hundred and forty-six patients underwent 612 ERCP procedures with placement of plastic biliary stent(s). On multivariate analysis, early stent occlusion did not differ between the wing and conventional groups in groups 1, 2, and 3. Among patients who achieved primary outcome in group 2, significantly fewer patients in the wing group had cholangitis (6.7% vs. 39.1%, P = 0.03). Among patients who achieved primary outcome in group 3, significantly fewer patients in the wing group had cholangitis (10% vs. 50%, P = 0.03).
conclusionsEarly stent occlusion was similar for wing stents and conventional plastic stents. Wing stents, however, were associated with a lower incidence of cholangitis in patients with malignant biliary obstruction and benign non-stricturing biliary pathology.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.