ArticleDEN open2026
Efficacy of the Stent-in-Stent Technique as a Rescue Method for Removing Embedded Metallic Biliary Stents.
Article in DEN open, 2026. 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.
- Biliary Stent Placement by Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography: Quality Indicators and Technical Applications.Gut and liver · 2026Review
- Efficacy of the Stent-in-Stent Technique as a Rescue Method for Removing Embedded Metallic Biliary Stents.DEN open · 2026Article
- Multi-Hole Self-Expandable Metallic Stent for Malignant Distal Biliary Obstruction: A Literature Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Self-expandable metal stents (SEMS) may become embedded because of tissue hyperplasia or tumor ingrowth, making their removal challenging. The stent-in-stent (SIS) method, which involves placing another SEMS inside to compress the tissue and aid removal, is a known rescue approach for stent removal. However, its efficacy across anatomical routes, optimal timing of removal, and predictors of difficult stent removal remain unclear. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 17 patients treated between April 2018 and May 2025. Embedded stents were placed via the transpapillary route, endoscopic ultrasonography-guided hepaticogastrostomy (EUS-HGS), or choledochojejunal anastomosis. Technical success rates and adverse events were evaluated. Results: The overall technical success rate was 76.5%, with rates of 80.0%, 100%, and 33.3% for the transpapillary route, EUS-HGS, and choledochojejunal anastomosis, respectively. Three of the four failures occurred when removal was attempted within 4 weeks of the second stent placement. Stent removal was successful in 100% of the hyperplasia cases but in 60% of the ingrowth cases. Cholecystitis occurred in one case after the second stent placement. Conclusions: The SIS method is feasible for the transpapillary route and EUS-HGS but may show limited efficacy in choledochojejunal anastomosis. Stent removal 4 weeks after the second stent placement improves the success rate. The SIS method may be less effective in cases of malignant ingrowth.
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.