A non-randomized study in consecutive patients with postcholecystectomy refractory biliary leaks who were managed endoscopically with the use of multiple plastic stents or fully covered self-expandable metal stents (with videos).

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Canena, J
Data de Publicação: 2015
Outros Autores: Liberato, M, Meireles, L, Marques, I, Romão, C, Coutinho, AP, Neves, BC, Veiga, PM
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
Texto Completo: http://hdl.handle.net/10400.26/9075
Resumo: BACKGROUND: Endoscopic management of postcholecystectomy biliary leaks is widely accepted as the treatment of choice. However, refractory biliary leaks after a combination of biliary sphincterotomy and the placement of a large-bore (10F) plastic stent can occur, and the optimal rescue endotherapy for this situation is unclear. OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical effectiveness of the use of a fully covered self-expandable metal stent (FCSEMS) with the placement of multiple plastic stents (MPS) for the treatment of postcholecystectomy refractory biliary leaks. DESIGN: Prospective study. SETTING: Two tertiary-care referral academic centers and one general district hospital. PATIENTS: Forty consecutive patients with refractory biliary leaks who underwent endoscopic management. INTERVENTIONS: Temporary placement of MPS (n = 20) or FCSEMSs (n = 20). MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Clinical outcomes of endotherapy as well as the technical success, adverse events, need for reinterventions, and prognostic factors for clinical success. RESULTS: Endotherapy was possible in all patients. After endotherapy, closure of the leak was accomplished in 13 patients (65%) who received MPS and in 20 patients (100%) who received FCSEMSs (P = .004). The Kaplan-Meier (log-rank) leak-free survival analysis showed a statistically significant difference between the 2 patient populations (χ(2) [1] = 8.30; P < .01) in favor of the FCSEMS group. Use of <3 plastic stents (P = .024), a plastic stent diameter <20F (P = .006), and a high-grade biliary leak (P = .015) were shown to be significant predictors of treatment failure with MPS. The 7 patients in whom placement of MPS failed were retreated with FCSEMSs, resulting in closure of the leaks in all cases. LIMITATIONS: Non-randomized design. CONCLUSION: In our series, the results of the temporary placement of FCSEMSs for postcholecystectomy refractory biliary leaks were superior to those from the use of MPS. A randomized study is needed to confirm our results before further recommendations.
id RCAP_9acc6a6a5382a14a0c0ea4f5bb001735
oai_identifier_str oai:comum.rcaap.pt:10400.26/9075
network_acronym_str RCAP
network_name_str Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
repository_id_str 7160
spelling A non-randomized study in consecutive patients with postcholecystectomy refractory biliary leaks who were managed endoscopically with the use of multiple plastic stents or fully covered self-expandable metal stents (with videos).Biliary Tract DiseasesBiliary Tract Surgical ProceduresEndoscopy, Digestive SystemStentsDoenças BiliaresEndoscopía do Sistema DigestivoProcedimentos Cirúrgicos do Sistema BiliarBACKGROUND: Endoscopic management of postcholecystectomy biliary leaks is widely accepted as the treatment of choice. However, refractory biliary leaks after a combination of biliary sphincterotomy and the placement of a large-bore (10F) plastic stent can occur, and the optimal rescue endotherapy for this situation is unclear. OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical effectiveness of the use of a fully covered self-expandable metal stent (FCSEMS) with the placement of multiple plastic stents (MPS) for the treatment of postcholecystectomy refractory biliary leaks. DESIGN: Prospective study. SETTING: Two tertiary-care referral academic centers and one general district hospital. PATIENTS: Forty consecutive patients with refractory biliary leaks who underwent endoscopic management. INTERVENTIONS: Temporary placement of MPS (n = 20) or FCSEMSs (n = 20). MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Clinical outcomes of endotherapy as well as the technical success, adverse events, need for reinterventions, and prognostic factors for clinical success. RESULTS: Endotherapy was possible in all patients. After endotherapy, closure of the leak was accomplished in 13 patients (65%) who received MPS and in 20 patients (100%) who received FCSEMSs (P = .004). The Kaplan-Meier (log-rank) leak-free survival analysis showed a statistically significant difference between the 2 patient populations (χ(2) [1] = 8.30; P < .01) in favor of the FCSEMS group. Use of <3 plastic stents (P = .024), a plastic stent diameter <20F (P = .006), and a high-grade biliary leak (P = .015) were shown to be significant predictors of treatment failure with MPS. The 7 patients in whom placement of MPS failed were retreated with FCSEMSs, resulting in closure of the leaks in all cases. LIMITATIONS: Non-randomized design. CONCLUSION: In our series, the results of the temporary placement of FCSEMSs for postcholecystectomy refractory biliary leaks were superior to those from the use of MPS. A randomized study is needed to confirm our results before further recommendations.ElsevierRepositório ComumCanena, JLiberato, MMeireles, LMarques, IRomão, CCoutinho, APNeves, BCVeiga, PM2015-06-28T15:42:07Z20152015-01-01T00:00:00Zinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/articleapplication/pdfhttp://hdl.handle.net/10400.26/9075engGastrointest Endosc. 2015 Jul;82(1):70-8.info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessreponame:Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)instname:Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informaçãoinstacron:RCAAP2022-12-20T14:25:02Zoai:comum.rcaap.pt:10400.26/9075Portal AgregadorONGhttps://www.rcaap.pt/oai/openaireopendoar:71602024-03-19T16:22:40.480832Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) - Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informaçãofalse
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv A non-randomized study in consecutive patients with postcholecystectomy refractory biliary leaks who were managed endoscopically with the use of multiple plastic stents or fully covered self-expandable metal stents (with videos).
title A non-randomized study in consecutive patients with postcholecystectomy refractory biliary leaks who were managed endoscopically with the use of multiple plastic stents or fully covered self-expandable metal stents (with videos).
spellingShingle A non-randomized study in consecutive patients with postcholecystectomy refractory biliary leaks who were managed endoscopically with the use of multiple plastic stents or fully covered self-expandable metal stents (with videos).
Canena, J
Biliary Tract Diseases
Biliary Tract Surgical Procedures
Endoscopy, Digestive System
Stents
Doenças Biliares
Endoscopía do Sistema Digestivo
Procedimentos Cirúrgicos do Sistema Biliar
title_short A non-randomized study in consecutive patients with postcholecystectomy refractory biliary leaks who were managed endoscopically with the use of multiple plastic stents or fully covered self-expandable metal stents (with videos).
title_full A non-randomized study in consecutive patients with postcholecystectomy refractory biliary leaks who were managed endoscopically with the use of multiple plastic stents or fully covered self-expandable metal stents (with videos).
title_fullStr A non-randomized study in consecutive patients with postcholecystectomy refractory biliary leaks who were managed endoscopically with the use of multiple plastic stents or fully covered self-expandable metal stents (with videos).
title_full_unstemmed A non-randomized study in consecutive patients with postcholecystectomy refractory biliary leaks who were managed endoscopically with the use of multiple plastic stents or fully covered self-expandable metal stents (with videos).
title_sort A non-randomized study in consecutive patients with postcholecystectomy refractory biliary leaks who were managed endoscopically with the use of multiple plastic stents or fully covered self-expandable metal stents (with videos).
author Canena, J
author_facet Canena, J
Liberato, M
Meireles, L
Marques, I
Romão, C
Coutinho, AP
Neves, BC
Veiga, PM
author_role author
author2 Liberato, M
Meireles, L
Marques, I
Romão, C
Coutinho, AP
Neves, BC
Veiga, PM
author2_role author
author
author
author
author
author
author
dc.contributor.none.fl_str_mv Repositório Comum
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Canena, J
Liberato, M
Meireles, L
Marques, I
Romão, C
Coutinho, AP
Neves, BC
Veiga, PM
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Biliary Tract Diseases
Biliary Tract Surgical Procedures
Endoscopy, Digestive System
Stents
Doenças Biliares
Endoscopía do Sistema Digestivo
Procedimentos Cirúrgicos do Sistema Biliar
topic Biliary Tract Diseases
Biliary Tract Surgical Procedures
Endoscopy, Digestive System
Stents
Doenças Biliares
Endoscopía do Sistema Digestivo
Procedimentos Cirúrgicos do Sistema Biliar
description BACKGROUND: Endoscopic management of postcholecystectomy biliary leaks is widely accepted as the treatment of choice. However, refractory biliary leaks after a combination of biliary sphincterotomy and the placement of a large-bore (10F) plastic stent can occur, and the optimal rescue endotherapy for this situation is unclear. OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical effectiveness of the use of a fully covered self-expandable metal stent (FCSEMS) with the placement of multiple plastic stents (MPS) for the treatment of postcholecystectomy refractory biliary leaks. DESIGN: Prospective study. SETTING: Two tertiary-care referral academic centers and one general district hospital. PATIENTS: Forty consecutive patients with refractory biliary leaks who underwent endoscopic management. INTERVENTIONS: Temporary placement of MPS (n = 20) or FCSEMSs (n = 20). MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Clinical outcomes of endotherapy as well as the technical success, adverse events, need for reinterventions, and prognostic factors for clinical success. RESULTS: Endotherapy was possible in all patients. After endotherapy, closure of the leak was accomplished in 13 patients (65%) who received MPS and in 20 patients (100%) who received FCSEMSs (P = .004). The Kaplan-Meier (log-rank) leak-free survival analysis showed a statistically significant difference between the 2 patient populations (χ(2) [1] = 8.30; P < .01) in favor of the FCSEMS group. Use of <3 plastic stents (P = .024), a plastic stent diameter <20F (P = .006), and a high-grade biliary leak (P = .015) were shown to be significant predictors of treatment failure with MPS. The 7 patients in whom placement of MPS failed were retreated with FCSEMSs, resulting in closure of the leaks in all cases. LIMITATIONS: Non-randomized design. CONCLUSION: In our series, the results of the temporary placement of FCSEMSs for postcholecystectomy refractory biliary leaks were superior to those from the use of MPS. A randomized study is needed to confirm our results before further recommendations.
publishDate 2015
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2015-06-28T15:42:07Z
2015
2015-01-01T00:00:00Z
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv http://hdl.handle.net/10400.26/9075
url http://hdl.handle.net/10400.26/9075
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv Gastrointest Endosc. 2015 Jul;82(1):70-8.
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Elsevier
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Elsevier
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv reponame:Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
instname:Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação
instacron:RCAAP
instname_str Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação
instacron_str RCAAP
institution RCAAP
reponame_str Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
collection Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
repository.name.fl_str_mv Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) - Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação
repository.mail.fl_str_mv
_version_ 1799130672035528704