Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36242688›Full record

ReviewDigestive diseases and sciences2023

Clinical Outcomes of Inside Stents and Conventional Plastic Stents as Bridge-to-Surgery Options for Malignant Hilar Biliary Obstruction.

Hirotoshi Ishiwatari, Takanori Kawabata, Hiroki Kawashima, Yousuke Nakai, Shin Miura, Hironari Kato, Hideyuki Shiomi, Nao Fujimori, Takeshi Ogura, Osamu Inatomi and 12 more

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Digestive diseases and sciences, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. 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

22 authors at 13 institutions in 1 country.

Hirotoshi IshiwatariDivision of Endoscopy, Shizuoka Cancer Center, 1007 Shimonagakubo Nagaizumi-cho, Sunto-gun, Shizuoka, Japan. ishihiro481019@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6719-4466
Takanori KawabataClinical Research Center, Shizuoka Cancer Center, Shizuoka, Japan.
Hiroki KawashimaDepartment of Endoscopy, Nagoya University Hospital, Nagoya, Japan.
Yousuke NakaiDepartment of Gastroenterology, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan.
Shin MiuraDivision of Gastroenterology, Tohoku University Graduate School of Medicine, Sendai, Japan.
Hironari KatoDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Okayama University Graduate School of Medicine and Dentistry, Okayama, Japan.
Hideyuki ShiomiDivision of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Kobe University Graduate School of Medicine, Kobe, Japan.
Nao FujimoriDepartment of Medicine and Bioregulatory Science, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan.
Takeshi OguraSecond Department of Internal Medicine, Osaka Medical and Pharmaceutical University (Osaka Medical College), Osaka, Japan.
Osamu InatomiDivision of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, Shiga University of Medical Science, Otsu, Japan.
Kensuke KubotaDivision of Gastroenterology, Yokohama City University Graduate School of Medicine, Yokohama, Japan.
Toshio FujisawaDepartment of Gastroenterology, Graduate School of Medicine, Juntendo University, Tokyo, Japan.
Mamoru TakenakaDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Faculty of Medicine, Kindai University, Osaka, Japan.
Hiroshi MoriDepartment of Endoscopy, Nagoya University Hospital, Nagoya, Japan.
Kensaku NoguchiDepartment of Gastroenterology, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan.
Yuki FujiiDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Okayama University Graduate School of Medicine and Dentistry, Okayama, Japan.
Teiichi SugiuraDivision of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Surgery, Shizuoka Cancer Center, Shizuoka, Japan.
Noboru IdenoDepartment of Surgery and Oncology, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan.
Tomoki NakafusaDepartment of Surgery and Oncology, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan.
Atsushi MasamuneDivision of Gastroenterology, Tohoku University Graduate School of Medicine, Sendai, Japan.
Hiroyuki IsayamaDepartment of Gastroenterology, Graduate School of Medicine, Juntendo University, Tokyo, Japan.
Naoki SasahiraDivision of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Medicine, Department of Gastroenterology, Cancer Institute Hospital of Japanese Foundation for Cancer Research, Tokyo, Japan.
Kyushu University · JPShizuoka Cancer Center · JPJuntendo University · JPNagoya University Hospital · JPOkayama University · JPThe University of Tokyo · JPTohoku University · JPHyogo Medical University · JPJapanese Foundation For Cancer Research · JPKindai University · JPOsaka Medical and Pharmaceutical University · JPShiga University of Medical Science · JPYokohama City University · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe appropriate method of preoperative endoscopic biliary drainage (EBD) for cholangiocarcinoma with hilar biliary obstruction remains controversial. The inside-stent technique is a method of placing plastic stents entirely inside the bile duct. Several studies of patients with unresectable stage have reported longer stent patency compared with conventional endoscopic biliary stenting (EBS). Inside-stent techniques have been introduced as a bridge-to-surgery option and as an alternative to conventional EBS.

aimsWe aimed to evaluate the clinical outcomes of inside stent use and conventional EBS.

methodsDuring this retrospective multicenter study, we reviewed consecutive patients with cholangiocarcinoma who underwent radical surgery after conventional EBS or inside-stent insertion. Adverse event (AE) rates after EBD and post-surgical AEs were compared. A multivariable analysis was performed to identify factors affecting cholangitis after EBD.

resultsConventional EBS and inside-stent procedures were performed for 56 and 73 patients, respectively. Patient backgrounds were similar between groups, except for percutaneous transhepatic portal vein embolization. The waiting time before surgery was similar between groups (28.5 days vs. 30 days). There were no significant differences in the cholangitis rate (21.4% vs. 26.0%; P = 0.68) and all AEs (25.0% vs. 30.1%; P = 0.56) between groups. The post-surgical AE rate was similar between the groups. The multivariable analysis found that preprocedural cholangitis was a risk factor for cholangitis after EBD (odds ratio: 5.67; 95% confidence interval: 1.61-19.9).

conclusionsThe outcomes of inside-stent techniques and conventional EBS for the management of preoperative EBD are comparable for patients with cholangiocarcinoma.

Indexed as

Bile Duct NeoplasmsCholangiocarcinomaCholangitisCholestasisBile Ducts, IntrahepaticDrainageHumansMulticenter Studies as TopicPlasticsRetrospective StudiesStentsTreatment OutcomePlasticsCholangiocarcinomaCholestasisSphincterotomy, endoscopic biliary stentingStentsSurgical procedure, Biliary

Identifiers

PMID36242688
OpenAlexW4306290892

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.