ReviewDEN open2022
Recent advances regarding endoscopic biliary drainage for unresectable malignant hilar biliary obstruction.
Review in DEN open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Intra-stent Radiofrequency Ablation Versus Plastic Stent Placement for Ingrowth Occlusion After Bilateral Metal Stenting in Patients with Malignant Hilar Biliary Obstruction: A Multicenter Propensity Score-Matched Analysis.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2025Article
- Article
- Article
- Surgical Palliation for Advanced Pancreas Cancer.The Surgical clinics of North America · 2024Review
- Comparison of stent patency between EUS-guided hepaticogastrostomy with bridging and endoscopic transpapillary biliary drainage for hilar obstruction.Endoscopy international open · 2024Article
- Article
- Retrospective comparative study of new slim-delivery and conventional large-cell stents for stent-in-stent methods for hilar malignant biliary obstruction.Digestive endoscopy : official journal of the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society · 2024Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Biliary drainage for unresectable malignant hilar biliary obstruction (UMHBO) is still associated with a number of controversies to be resolved. The superiority of bilateral drainage in comparison to unilateral drainage has not been proven obviously yet. However, bilateral drainage is necessary to treat obstructive jaundice in some UMHBO patients, and this may be connected with preservation of the functional liver volume. The partial stent-in-stent (SIS) method and side-by-side (SBS) method developed as bilateral drainage methods. There is no significant difference in the technical or clinical success rates of the SIS and SBS methods. In addition, these methods are comparable in terms of adverse events, patency period, and survival period. On the other hand, reintervention for recurrent biliary obstruction (RBO) after the SBS method seems to be easier in comparison to cases with RBO after the SIS method; however, there is no remarkable difference in the clinical results of these procedures. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided biliary drainage also has become an option for patients with UMHBO. Left hepatic drainage using EUS-guided hepaticogastrostomy (EUS-HGS) has become common; however, few studies have reported the results of bridging drainage for the right lobe using the EUS-HGS route or EUS-guided hepaticojejunostomy. A few studies addressed the results of newly designed stents, such as the 6-mm braided metal stent and inside stent. The development of various drainage methods and new devices is necessary for the further advancement of endoscopic biliary drainage for patients with UMHBO, further studies to evaluate those methods and devices are warranted.
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.