Copyright
©The Author(s) 2019.
World J Gastrointest Endosc. May 16, 2019; 11(5): 365-372
Published online May 16, 2019. doi: 10.4253/wjge.v11.i5.365
Published online May 16, 2019. doi: 10.4253/wjge.v11.i5.365
Table 1 Clinical characteristics of patients who underwent fully covered self-expanding metal stent placement with or without double-pigtail plastic stent
Characteristic | Determinant | Frequency count | Percent of total frequency |
Gender | Female | 88 | 43.34 |
Male | 115 | 56.65 | |
Race | Black | 9 | 4.43 |
White | 194 | 95.56 | |
Age | Mean (62.97); Range (23.00-91.00) | ||
Brand of FCSEMS | Viabil fully covered | 90 | 44.33 |
Viabil fully covered with proximal fenestration | 63 | 31.03 | |
WallFlex | 50 | 24.63 | |
Cholangitis drainage | No | 191 | 94.08 |
Yes | 12 | 5.91 | |
Choledocholithiasis at time of stent placement | No | 188 | 92.61 |
Yes | 15 | 7.38 | |
History of cholecystectomy | No | 92 | 45.32 |
Yes | 111 | 54.67 | |
History of stent migration | No | 196 | 96.55 |
Yes | 7 | 3.44 | |
Length of FCSEMS (cm) | 4 | 30 | 14.77 |
6 | 106 | 52.21 | |
8 | 47 | 23.15 | |
10 | 20 | 9.85 | |
Length of Stricture (mm) | Mean (19.21); Range (0.00-90.00) | ||
CBD diameter (mm) | Mean (11.19); Range (3.00-35.00) | ||
Malignant stricture | No | 108 | 53.20 |
Yes | 95 | 46.79 | |
Migration | No | 185 | 91.13 |
Yes | 18 | 8.86 | |
Post sphincterotomy bleed | No | 194 | 95.56 |
Yes | 9 | 4.43 | |
Previous sphincterotomy | No | 120 | 59.11 |
Yes | 83 | 40.88 | |
Sphincterotomy at time of stent deployment | No | 82 | 40.39 |
Yes | 121 | 59.60 |
Table 2 Comparison between patients who had migration of fully covered self-expanding metal stent placement (FCSEMS) and patient who had no migration of FCSEMS
Characteristic | Determinant | Migration (n = 18) | No migration (n = 185) | P-value |
Gender | Female | 5 (27.8%) | 83 (44.9%) | 0.1626 |
Male | 13 (72.2%) | 102 (55.1%) | - | |
Age | mean ± SD (range) | 59.83 (12.38) - (34.00, 91.00) | 63.28 (15.23) - (23.00, 91.00) | 0.3539 |
Race | Black | 2 (11.1%) | 7 (3.8%) | 0.1494 |
White | 16 (88.9%) | 178 (96.2%) | - | |
Post sphincterotomy bleed | No | 17 (94.4%) | 177 (95.7%) | 0.8086 |
Yes | 1 (5.6%) | 8 (4.3%) | - | |
Bile leak | No | 18 (100.0%) | 165 (89.2%) | 0.1418 |
Yes | 0 (0.0%) | 20 (10.8%) | - | |
Benign biliary stricture | No | 6 (33.3%) | 115 (62.2%) | 0.0173 |
Yes | 12 (66.7%) | 70 (37.8%) | - | |
Cholangitis drainage | No | 18 (100.0%) | 173 (93.5%) | 0.2653 |
Yes | 0 (0.0%) | 12 (6.5%) | - | |
Malignant stricture | No | 13 (72.2%) | 95 (51.4%) | 0.0902 |
Yes | 5 (27.8%) | 90 (48.6%) | - | |
Brand of FCSEMS | Viabil fully covered | 8 (44.4%) | 82 (44.3%) | 0.2294 |
Viabil fully covered with proximal fenestration | 3 (16.7%) | 60 (32.4%) | - | |
WallFlex | 7 (38.9%) | 43 (23.2%) | - | |
Length of FCSEMS (cm) | 4 | 2 (11.1%) | 28 (15.1%) | 0.9376 |
6 | 9 (50.0%) | 97 (52.4%) | - | |
8 | 5 (27.8%) | 42 (22.7%) | - | |
10 | 2 (11.1%) | 18 (9.7%) | - | |
Anchored FCSEMSs with DPS | No | 14 (77.8%) | 124 (67.0%) | 0.3507 |
Yes | 4 (22.2%) | 61 (33.0%) | - | |
Length of stricture (mm) | mean ± SD (range) | 14.67 (10.72) - (0.00, 40.00) | 19.65 (19.32) - (0.00, 90.00) | 0.0958 |
CBD diameter (mm) | mean ± SD (range) | 11.61 (4.50) - (5.00,22.00) | 11.15 (4.70) - (3.00,35.00) | 0.6878 |
History of cholecystectomy | No | 5 (27.8%) | 87 (47.0%) | 0.1173 |
Yes | 13 (72.2%) | 98 (53.0%) | - | |
Previous sphincterotomy | No | 6 (33.3%) | 114 (61.6%) | 0.0198 |
Yes | 12 (66.7%) | 71 (38.4%) | - | |
Sphincterotomy at time of stent deployment | No | 9 (50.0%) | 73 (39.5%) | 0.3843 |
Yes | 9 (50.0%) | 112 (60.5%) | - | |
History of stent migration | No | 17 (94.4%) | 179 (96.8%) | 0.6078 |
Yes | 1 (5.6%) | 6 (3.2%) | - | |
Choledocholithiasis at time of stent placement | No | 16 (88.9%) | 172 (93.0%) | 0.5272 |
Yes | 2 (11.1%) | 13 (7.0%) | - |
- Citation: Emhmed Ali S, Frandah WM, Su L, Fielding C, Mardini H. Should a fully covered self-expandable biliary metal stent be anchored with a double-pigtail plastic stent? A retrospective study. World J Gastrointest Endosc 2019; 11(5): 365-372
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1948-5190/full/v11/i5/365.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4253/wjge.v11.i5.365