ArticleBMC gastroenterology2024
Inside stent placement is suitable for preoperative biliary drainage in patients with perihilar cholangiocarcinoma.
Article in BMC gastroenterology, 2024. 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.
- Article
- Above- Versus Across-The-Papilla Plastic Stent Placement for Malignant Hilar Biliary Obstruction in Unresectable Biliary Tract Cancer: A Multicentre IPTW Analysis.Journal of hepato-biliary-pancreatic sciences · 2026Observational
- Clinical outcomes of initial inside stenting for preoperative malignant hilar biliary obstruction in patients with jaundice.Surgery today · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background/purposeEndoscopic biliary stenting (EBS) is commonly used for preoperative drainage of localized perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (LPHC). This study retrospectively compared the utility of inside stent (IS) and conventional stent (CS) for preoperative EBS in patients with LPHC.
methodsEBS was performed in 56 patients with LPHC. EBS involved the placement of a CS (n = 32) or IS (n = 24). Treatment outcomes were compared between these two groups.
resultsPreoperative recurrent biliary obstruction (RBO) occurred in 23 patients (71.9%) in the CS group and 7 (29.2%) in the IS group, with a significant difference (p = 0.002). The time to RBO (TRBO) was significantly longer in IS than in CS (log-rank: p < 0.001). The number of stent replacements was significantly lower in IS than CS [0.38 (0-3) vs. 1.88 (0-8), respectively; p < 0.001]. Gemcitabine-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) was administered to 26 patients (46.4%). Among patients who received NAC, TRBO was longer in IS than in CS group (log-rank: p < 0.001). The IS group had a significantly shorter preoperative and postoperative hospital stay than the CS group (20.0 vs. 37.0 days; p = 0.024, and 33.5 vs. 41.5 days; p = 0.016). Both the preoperative and the postoperative costs were significantly lower in the IS group than in the CS group (p = 0.049 and p = 0.0034, respectively).
conclusionCompared with CS, IS for preoperative EBS in LPHC patients resulted in fewer complications and lower re-intervention rates. The fact that the IS group had shorter preoperative and postoperative hospital stays and lower costs both preoperatively and postoperatively compared to the CS group may suggest that the use of IS has the potential to benefit not only the patient but also the healthcare system.
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.