One-step versus two-step distal self-expandable metal stent placement: A multicenter prospective randomized trial

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Two methods of transpapillary covered self-expandable metal stent (SEMS) placement are used for distal malignant biliary obstruction (MBO): after initial drainage by plastic stent (two-step method) and without previous drainage (one-step method).

METHODS

In total, 90 patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer and distal MBO were enrolled in this prospective multicenter randomized study and allocated to one-step (n = 45) and two-step (n = 45) groups. The main outcome was the time to recurrent biliary obstruction (TRBO). Secondary outcomes were the rates of early and late adverse events, survival time, the time required for bilirubin level reduction, and cost-effectiveness.

RESULTS

The median TRBO did not differ significantly between the one-step and two-step groups (not available vs 314 days, P = 0.134). SEMS migration occurred significantly more frequently in the two-step group (14.3% vs 0%, P = 0.026). No significant difference was observed between groups in early (7.3% vs 14.3%, P = 0.483) or late (12.2% and 11.9%, P = 1) adverse events other than RBO, survival time (P = 0.104), or the median number of days required to reach a bilirubin level considered to be acceptable for chemotherapy administration (<3 mg/dL; P = 0.881). The total costs of stent placement and reintervention were significantly lower in the one-step SEMS group (3347 vs 5465 US dollars, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The superiority of TRBO with two-step SEMS placement was not demonstrated. One-step SEMS placement might be a promising method from the viewpoints of cost-effectiveness and less invasiveness (UMIN-CTR clinical trial registration number: UMIN000016010).

Novel characteristics of traction force in biliary self-expandable metallic stents

BACKGROUND AND AIM

In recent years, knowledge concerning the mechanical properties of self-expandable metallic stents (SEMS) has increased. In a previous study, we defined traction force and traction momentum and reported that these characteristics are important for optimal stent deployment. However, traction force and traction momentum were represented as relative values and were not evaluated in various conditions. The purpose of the present study was to measure traction force in various situations assumed during SEMS placement.

METHODS

Traction force and traction momentum were measured in non-stricture, stricture, and angled stricture models using in-house equipment.

RESULTS

Stricture and angled stricture models had significantly higher traction force and traction momentum than those of the non-stricture model (stricture vs non-stricture: traction force, 7.2 N vs 1.4 N, P < 0.001; traction momentum, 237.8 Ns vs 62.3 Ns, P = 0.001; angled stricture vs non-stricture: traction force, 7.4 N vs 1.4 N, P < 0.001; traction momentum, 307.2 Ns vs 62.3 Ns, P < 0.001). Traction force was variable during SEMS placement and was categorized into five different stages, which were similar in both the stricture and angled stricture models.

CONCLUSIONS

We measured traction force and traction momentum under simulated clinical conditions and demonstrated that strictures and the angular positioning of the stent influenced the traction force. Clinicians should be aware of the transition of the traction force and should schedule X-ray imaging during SEMS placement.