Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30531024›Full record

ArticleEndoscopic ultrasound

EUS-guided antegrade metal stenting with hepaticoenterostomy using a dedicated plastic stent with a review of the literature (with video).

Kenjiro Yamamoto, Takao Itoi, Takayoshi Tsuchiya, Reina Tanaka, Ryosuke Tonozuka, Mitsuyoshi Honjo, Shuntaro Mukai, Mitsuru Fujita, Yasutsugu Asai, Yukitoshi Matsunami and 3 more

Open access · greenAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Endoscopic ultrasound. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.0field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

28 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 46 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Kenjiro YamamotoDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Tokyo Medical University, Tokyo, Japan.
Takao ItoiDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Tokyo Medical University, Tokyo, Japan.
Takayoshi TsuchiyaDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Tokyo Medical University, Tokyo, Japan.
Reina TanakaDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Tokyo Medical University, Tokyo, Japan.
Ryosuke TonozukaDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Tokyo Medical University, Tokyo, Japan.
Mitsuyoshi HonjoDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Tokyo Medical University, Tokyo, Japan.
Shuntaro MukaiDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Tokyo Medical University, Tokyo, Japan.
Mitsuru FujitaDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Tokyo Medical University, Tokyo, Japan.
Yasutsugu AsaiDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Tokyo Medical University, Tokyo, Japan.
Yukitoshi MatsunamiDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Tokyo Medical University, Tokyo, Japan.
Takashi KurosawaDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Tokyo Medical University, Tokyo, Japan.
Atsushi SofuniDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Tokyo Medical University, Tokyo, Japan.
Yuichi NagakawaThird Department of Surgery, Tokyo Medical University, Tokyo, Japan.
Tokyo Medical University · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

objectivesRecently, a novel EUS-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) technique consisting of EUS-guided antegrade stenting and EUS-guided hepaticoenterostomy (EUS-AS+HES) using two conventional metal stents (MS) has been reported to decrease adverse events and maintain longer stent patency for malignant biliary obstruction (MBO). However, only a few limited reports have evaluated this technique. Finally, dedicated plastic stents (PSs) have been developed to perform EUS-HES safely. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the outcome in EUS-AS+HES for MBO using the dedicated HES PSs.

methodsThe results of a total of 23 patients who underwent EUS-AS+HES (18 simultaneous cases and 5 sequential cases) for MBO from October 2014 to July 2017 were retrospectively reviewed.

resultsTechnical and clinical success rates were 100% (23/23). Adverse events were seen in 8.7% (2/23); 2 cases of mild biliary peritonitis, which were successfully managed conservatively. Overall survival was 96 days and the median duration of stent patency, including stent dysfunction, patient death, and last follow-up, was 66.0 days (53 days in simultaneous cases and 78 days in sequential cases). Stent dysfunction was seen in 13.0% (3/23) of patients in 267, 263, and 135 days after the procedure.

conclusionsThe novel EUS-BD technique, EUS-AS using MS plus HES employing a dedicated PS, was shown to be a feasible procedure for MBO and should yield longer duration of stent patency. Furthermore, sequential antegrade stenting in cases of occluded HES seems to be one other option instead of HES stent exchange. Further large-scale comparison studies with EUS-HES or EUS-AS are required to confirm its clinical efficacy.

Indexed as

EUS-guided antegrade stentingEUS-guided biliary drainageEUS-guided hepaticoenterostomymalignant biliary obstruction

Identifiers

PMID30531024
PMCPMC6289013
OpenAlexW2903990756

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.