ArticleDigestive diseases and sciences2025
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.
Article in Digestive diseases and sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIntra-stent radiofrequency ablation (IS-RFA) is an alternative for treating ingrowth occlusions after metal stent (MS) deployment; however, its utility remains uncertain. This study aimed to examine the utility of IS-RFA compared with plastic stent (PS) placement for ingrowth occlusion after bilateral uncovered MS placement in patients with malignant hilar biliary obstruction.
methodsIn total, 148 patients met the inclusion criteria. The technical and clinical success rates, recurrent biliary obstruction (RBO), and adverse events were compared between the IS-RFA and PS placement groups. Propensity score matching was performed to adjust for between-group differences.
resultsThe technical success rate did not significantly differ between the IS-RFA and PS groups (92.8 versus 85.0%, P = 0.481), whereas the clinical success rate in the IS-RFA group was significantly lower than that in the PS group (70.3 versus 94.1%, P = 0.013). No significant group differences were observed in the rates of early and late adverse events. Among patients who achieved clinical success, the RBO incidence rate did not differ significantly between the groups at 42.3% and 56.3%, respectively (P = 0.429). However, the median time to RBO in the IS-RFA group was significantly longer than that in the PS group (163 days versus 89 days, P = 0.015). The IS-RFA group had a significantly lower mean total number of reintervention procedures than the PS group (1.4 versus 2.5, P = 0.038).
conclusionsIS-RFA may be a useful option for ingrowth occlusion after bilateral MS placement. However, measures are needed to improve the clinical success rate for a standard treatment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40721904What 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.