ArticleWorld journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy2019
Should a fully covered self-expandable biliary metal stent be anchored with a double-pigtail plastic stent? A retrospective study.
Article in World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Comparison of fully covered self-expandable metal biliary stents with or without anchoring double-pigtail plastic stents: a systematic review and meta-analysis.iGIE : innovation, investigation and insights · 2026Review
- Prevention of stent migration of covered self-expandable metal stents in distal malignant biliary obstruction: a review of literature.Gastroenterology report · 2025Review
- Biliary stents for active materials and surface modification: Recent advances and future perspectives.Bioactive materials · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe migration rate of fully covered self-expandable metal stents (FCSEMSs) has been reported to be between 14% to 37%. Anchoring of FCSEMSs using a double-pigtail plastic stent (DPS) may decrease migration.
aimTo compare stent migration rates between patients who received FCSEMS alone and those who received both an FCSEMS and anchoring DPS.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective analysis of endoscopy reporting system and medical records of 1366 patients who underwent endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) with FCSEMS placement at the University of Kentucky health care. Between July 2015 and April 2017, 203 patients with FCSEMS insertion for the treatment of malignant biliary stricture, benign biliary stricture, post-sphincterotomy bleeding, bile leak, and cholangitis drainage were identified. The review and analysis were conducted through our endoscopy reporting system (ProVation
results1366 patients had undergone ERCP by three advanced endoscopists over 21-mo period; among these, 203 patients had FCSEMSs placed. 65 patients had FCSEMSs with DPS, and 138 had FCSEMSs alone. 65 patients had FCSEMSs with DPS, and 138 had FCSEMSs alone. 95 patients had a malignant stricture, 82 patients had a benign stricture, 12 patients had bile leak, 12 patients had cholangitis, and nine patients had post-sphincterotomy bleeding. The migration rate in patients with anchored FCSEMSs with DPS was 6%, and those without anchoring DPS was 10% (
conclusionThe risk of migration of biliary FCSEMS was 9.7 %. Anchoring an FCSEMS with DPS does not decrease the risk of stent migration.
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.