ArticleEndoscopic ultrasound
EUS-guided choledochoduodenostomy for malignant biliary obstruction: A multicenter comparative study between plastic and metallic stents.
Article in Endoscopic ultrasound. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of long-term outcomes of endoscopic ultrasound-guided hepaticogastrostomy and choledochoduodenostomy for distal malignant biliary obstruction: a multicenter retrospective study.Therapeutic advances in gastroenterology · 2024Article
- Endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage: a literature review.Revista do Colegio Brasileiro de Cirurgioes · 2023Review
- Clinical application and follow-up of electrocautery-enhanced lumen-apposing metal stents for endoscopic ultrasonography-guided interventions.Annals of medicine · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Objectives: EUS-guided choledochoduodenostomy (EUS-CDS) is commonly employed to address malignant biliary obstruction (MBO) after a failed ERCP. In this context, both self-expandable metallic stents (SEMSs) and double-pigtail stents (DPSs) are suitable devices. However, few data comparing the outcomes of SEMS and DPS exist. Therefore, we aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of SEMS and DPS at performing EUS-CDS. Methods: We conducted a multicenter retrospective cohort study between March 2014 and March 2019. Patients diagnosed with MBO were considered eligible after at least one failed ERCP attempt. Clinical success was defined as a drop of direct bilirubin levels ≥ 50% at 7 and 30 postprocedural days. Adverse events (AEs) were categorized as early (≤7 days) or late (>7 days). The severity of AEs was graded as mild, moderate, or severe. Results: Forty patients were included, 24 in the SEMS group and 16 in the DPS group. Demographic data were similar between the groups. Technical success rates and clinical success rates at 7 and 30 days were similar between the groups. Similarly, we found no statistical difference in the incidence of early or late AEs. However, there were two severe AEs (intracavitary migration) in the DPS group and none in the SEMS cohort. Finally, there was no difference in median survival (DPS 117 days vs. SEMS 217 days; P = 0.99). Conclusion: EUS-guided CDS is an excellent alternative to achieve biliary drainage after a failed ERCP for MBO. There is no significant difference regarding the effectiveness and safety of SEMS and DPS in this context.
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.