ArticleCardiovascular and interventional radiology2026
Outcomes of Suprapapillary Versus Transpapillary Biliary Stent Placement for Palliation of Malignant Hilar Biliary Obstruction.
Article in Cardiovascular and interventional radiology, 2026. 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.
- Commentary on Outcomes of Suprapapillary Versus Transpapillary Biliary Stent Placement for Palliation of Malignant Hilar Biliary Obstruction.Cardiovascular and interventional radiology · 2026Article
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
purposeThe optimal distal position of percutaneously deployed self-expanding metal stents (SEMS) in malignant hilar biliary obstruction (MHBO) is debated. This study compared the safety and effectiveness of suprapapillary (SP) versus transpapillary (TP) SEMS placement in isolated MHBO. MATERIALS AND
methodsEligible adult patients undergoing percutaneous uncovered biliary SEMS placement for isolated MHBO at a single centre (2011-2024) were retrospectively identified. Stent position was classified as SP or TP based on blinded imaging review. Propensity score matching minimised baseline differences between groups. The primary outcome was the incidence of recurrent biliary obstruction (RBO). Secondary outcomes included technical success, clinical success (bilirubin normalisation [< 21 μmol/L] or ≥ 50% reduction from baseline within 14 days of initial drainage without biochemical rebound following catheter removal), complications, reintervention and mortality.
resultsAfter matching, 102 patients were analysed (51 TP, 51 SP). Technical and clinical success were comparable between groups (94.1 vs. 98.0% [p = 0.62] and 90.2 vs. 78.4% [p = 0.15], respectively). Complications occurred in 13.7% overall (17.6% TP vs. 9.8% SP [p = 0.39]). No significant differences were observed in the cumulative incidence of RBO (sHR 0.81, 95% CI 0.42-1.58 [p = 0.54]) or overall survival (HR 1.44, 95% CI 0.76-2.72 [p = 0.27]).
conclusionNo significant differences were observed between SP and TP stent positions for isolated MHBO. When SP placement is intra-procedurally identified to be suboptimal, a TP strategy does not compromise biliary patency or survival. This supports an individualised approach to managing complex hilar disease. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2b, Cohort study.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42162303What 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.