Добавил:
Sekretar
kiopkiopkiop18@yandex.ru
t.me/Prokururor I Вовсе не секретарь, но почту проверяю
Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз:
Предмет:
Файл:Ординатура / Хирургия / Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана / Книга_1348_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана.pdf
148
W. Leung et al.
Fig. 10.5 Cholangiogram of a Bismuth II cholangiocarcinoma containing a single localized stenosis 20 mm in
length
fi rst stent either at the initial procedure or at a
later procedure if subsequently needed should
jaundice not be relieved with one stent [
64 ] .
The other consideration when unilateral stent
placement is undertaken for hilar tumors is
whether to use a short-length stent that is adequate to cover the length of the stricture yet
remain above the level of the papilla. The advantages are the potential decrease in stent-induced
hyperplasia as less stent is in contact with the
normal duct and potentially an improvement in
patency if a sphincterotomy is not performed as
this precludes stent occlusion due to re fl ux of
food material.
Postsurgical Anatomy
In some patients with altered anatomy (e.g., pancreaticoduodenectomy, Roux-en-Y hepaticojejunostomy), the biliary tree can only be reached
with colonoscopes. The delivery system of most
SEMS is long enough to pass through these endoscopes, and some SEMS have delivery systems
with diameters small enough to pass through
pediatric colonoscopes [ 65 ] .
Fig. 10.6 Bilateral metal stenting of the lesion in
10.5 (8 mm × 10 cm and 8 mm × 8 mm metal stents
Fig.
placed into the left and right systems, respectively)
(if possible) or be matched at the same level
within the duct so as to facilitate reintervention if
occlusion occurs.
When using the stent-in-stent technique or
when a unilateral stent is placed, it is best to use
stents with a wide cell width (large interstices) to
allow a wire and second stent to pass through the
Stent-in-Stent Placement to Facilitate
Uncovered and Partially Covered SEMS
Removal
In some cases of UCSEMS or PCSEMS placement, the stent needs to subsequently be removed
(examples mentioned above – lymphoma
responsive to therapy and unrecognized benign
disease). The stent ends of PCSEMS become
imbedded, making removal dif fi cult. A recent
concept applied to partially covered esophageal
SEMS removal has also been applied to partially
covered biliary SEMS removal. A fully covered
SEMS is placed within the PCSEMS to overlap
both ends. Tissue necrosis between the imbedded uncovered portion and the fully covered
portion allows the wires of the uncovered stent
to then be exposed to the surface. Both SEMS
are removed as early as 7 days but up to several
weeks later [
66, 67 ] . This technique is likely
more effective with PCSEMS than UCSEMS
and patients in whom the original stent is exiting the papilla so that the stent can be easily
grasped.
14910 Biliary and Pancreatic Stents: Indications and Placement Techniques
Percutaneous Stent Placement
Percutaneous therapy is performed by interventional radiologists via a transhepatic approach
(percutaneous transhepatic cholangiography or
PTC). The intrahepatic bile ducts are initially
accessed with a skinny needle under ultrasound
or fl uoroscopic guidance using an antegrade
approach. Subsequently, a guidewire is passed
into the biliary tree to facilitate catheter placement. In most situations, the stricture is traversed,
and the guidewire is passed into the duodenum.
In some situations, internal-external drainage is
performed temporarily for several days with a
plastic catheter, and the SEMS is placed several
days later. In some patients, internalization and
SEMS placement can be achieved at the initial
procedure. More commonly, one procedure is
required for initial-external tube placement and
another for internalization of a stent, or for
removal of a temporary external catheter placed
as a precautionary measure at the time of SEMS
placement.
Prior to the advent of self-expandable metal
stents (SEMS), the percutaneous tract through
the liver required aggressive dilation in order to
accommodate large-bore plastic stents. This was
associated with a higher incidence of postprocedural pain and bleeding. Because SEMS have a
small predeployment delivery system, the tract
through the liver does not require as large dilation
as for SEMS. This is associated with a decreased
bleeding risk and the potential of placing a SEMS
with a single puncture precluding need of an
external catheter.
Percutaneous insertion and internalization of
biliary SEMS is achievable in nearly all patients
with pancreatic cancer and distal bile duct
obstruction. With the advent of endoscopic palliation, however, percutaneous therapy has become
less commonly performed and is used when
endoscopic techniques are not available, fail, or
when the papilla is inaccessible due to duodenal
tumor invasion, prior duodenal stent placement
across the biliary tree, or because of postsurgical
anatomy. There is only one randomized, prospective trial comparing percutaneous and endoscopic
therapy for the palliation of distal malignant
obstructive jaundice [ 68 ] . This landmark study
showed that the endoscopic method had a
signi fi cantly higher success rate for relief of jaundice and signi fi cantly lower 30-day mortality.
The higher mortality in the percutaneous group
was due to complications associated with liver
puncture (bleeding and bile leaks). This study is
now considered outdated since it was performed
using plastic stents prior to the development of
expandable metal stents, the insertion of which is
less likely to require aggressive dilation of the
percutaneous tract through the liver, which in
turn decreases bleeding and bile leakage [ 69, 70 ] .
Nonetheless, more recent studies have shown that
major complications following percutaneous
SEMS placement are still more common than
endoscopic stent placement [ 71 ] . Percutaneous
stent placement, however, is effective in most
patients who have failed attempt at endoscopic
stent placement [ 72 ] . Additionally, in centers
without expertise in ERCP, percutaneous therapy
is used as the primary method of nonsurgical palliation of malignant obstructive jaundice. Overall,
the technical success rate of percutaneous expandable metal stent placement is high with a high
rate of clinical resolution of jaundice [ 73 ] .
Combined Percutaneous and Endoscopic
Palliation of Obstructive Jaundice:
Rendezvous Procedure
In some situations in which endoscopic therapy
fails to access the bile duct and/or traverse the
stricture, a percutaneous approach can be performed to facilitate the endoscopic procedure.
The advantage of this approach versus completion of the entire procedure percutaneously may
be realized only when ERCP is undertaken the
same day. In this scenario, a guidewire that has
been placed transhepatically into the duodenum
is grasped endoscopically and used to complete
the procedure and without need to dilate the liver
or for temporary percutaneous catheter placement [ 74 ] .
Combined Malignant Biliary and
Duodenal Obstruction
The sequence of biliary and duodenal obstruction, prior intervention for either, and the relationship of the duodenal obstruction anatomically
150
W. Leung et al.
Fig. 10.7 Biliary (8 mm × 6 cm) and gastroduodenal
(22 mm × 120 mm) metal stent placement for malignant
biliary and gastric outlet obstruction from gastric cancer
to the papilla determines the strategy one
chooses for stent placement in patients with biliary and duodenal obstruction [ 75 ] . A complete
detailed description of the techniques to manage
these patients is presented in Chap. 11 . Brie fl y,
the most common scenario is development of a
duodenal stricture in a patient with pancreatic
cancer and preexisting biliary stent. In this case,
if an existing plastic biliary stent is present, it is
exchanged for SEMS, and then the duodenal
SEMS is inserted. When duodenal and biliary
strictures develop simultaneously with the duodenal stricture at or above the papilla, and the
papilla cannot be accessed, a duodenal SEMS
can be inserted. Biliary cannulation is then
attempted (Fig. 10.7 ). If initial attempts fail,
another attempt can be made at 24–48 h (to
allow complete duodenal SEMS expansion) to
pass the endoscope to the papilla. A biliary
SEMS can be inserted as usual if the duodenal
stent does not cross the papilla. If the duodenal
stent crosses the papilla, cannulation can be performed through the duodenal SEMS mesh. If
needed, a window can be created in the side of
the duodenal SEMS using argon beam coagulation to expose the papilla and facilitate biliary
cannulation [ 76 ] .
Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Biliary
Stent Placement
Endoscopic ultrasound ( EUS)-guided cholang-
iography has evolved from a diagnostic procedure to a therapeutic technique for gaining access
to the bile ducts when conventional ERCP fails or
is not possible due to altered surgical anatomy.
Due to the close proximity to the gastrointestinal
tract, the left intrahepatic ducts and common bile
ducts are well visualized with EUS and can be
accessed through a transgastric or transduodenal
approach.
EUS-guided cholangiography is technically
feasible and relatively safe in the hands of experienced interventional endoscopists skilled in
both ERCP and EUS. This technique offers a
potential alternative to surgery and to percutaneous therapy in patients in whom conventional
ERCP is unsuccessful or not possible. Currently,
this procedure is most often performed in tertiary
centers with highly skilled endoscopists using a
multidisciplinary approach in these challenging
cases.
As a general rule, four EUS-guided approaches
have been used to decompress the biliary
system:
1. Creation of a choledochoduodenal fi stula with
stent placement (Figs. 10.8 and 10.9 ) [ 77 ] .
2. Creation of a hepatogastric fi stula with
stent placement into the stomach above the
stricture [ 77 ] .
3. Accessing the left system, passing a guide-
wire antegrade into the duodenum and pass-
ing the stent antegrade through the
echoendoscope across the stricture with the
distal end below the tumor and the proximal
end above the stricture. The entire stent is
within the biliary tree, thus creating an inter-
nal biliary stent [ 78 ] .
4. EUS-guided rendezvous by accessing either
the left intrahepatic ducts transgastrically or
common bile duct transduodenally with pas-
sage of a guidewire into the duodenum,
removal of the echoendoscope, and passage of
a conventional duodenoscope to grasp the
wire [ 79 ] .
15110 Biliary and Pancreatic Stents: Indications and Placement Techniques
Fig. 10.8 Patient with a 4.8-cm pancreatic head mass
(T3 N1 M0 EUS staging) with biliary and duodenal
obstruction of the second portion of duodenum. An EUSguided transduodenal approach was performed using a
19-gauge needle
Fig. 10.9 Wire-guided dilation with the 4-5-7 Fr catheter
was successful. An 8 mm × 8 cm uncovered metal biliary
metal stent was placed across the stricture
The techniques of EUS-guided stent placement
will be brie fl y described. An echoendoscope is
passed into the stomach or duodenum depending
on the intended approach of access being either
transduodenal or transgastric. A diagnostic linear
array echoendoscope can be used if the stent has a
small delivery system (6 Fr) or if the intent is to
not pass the stent through the endoscope. A therapeutic channel endoscope is needed if the intent is
to pass stents with larger delivery systems through
the endoscope. A 19-gauge fi ne needle aspiration
(FNA) needle is required for passage of a 0.035²
guidewire, whereas a 22-gauge needle accepts a
0.018² wire. If the goal is to pass the wire through
the papilla, the trajectory of the puncture is important such that it is directed toward the distal bile
duct and not toward the intrahepatic system, if
possible. Color Doppler is used to prevent inadvertent puncture of vessels. Once the duct of interest is identi fi ed, the FNA needle is used to puncture
through the gastric or duodenal wall. Aspiration
of bile and injection of contrast under fl uoroscopy
con fi rms entry into the biliary tree. The needle is
fl ushed with water and a guidewire is passed
deeply into the duct. The FNA needle is withdrawn and the tract dilated. Tapered catheters
often pass easily through duodenal wall to then
allow dilation (4 mm) to permit stent passage. The
gastric wall is thick, and creation of a tract usually
requires the use of electrocautery (triple lumen
needle knife, cystenterotome) over the wire and
into the bile duct followed by balloon dilation of
the tract. The stent is passed through the echoendoscope into the duct and deployed as outlined in
options 1, 2, or 3 above. If a rendezvous approach
(option 4) is chosen, then a traditional long length
biliary guidewire (400 cm) wire is passed across
the papilla and the echoendoscope withdrawn.
A duodenoscope is advanced alongside the guidewire and passed into the duodenum where the
wire is grasped and withdrawn thorough the working channel. The stent is then deployed as per the
usual transpapillary approach.
Complications of EUS-guided puncture
include bile leakage, pneumoperitoneum (usually
self-limited), perforation, bleeding, and cholangitis. One must also be aware that the tip of the
guidewire can be sheared off within the biliary
tree if withdrawn into the needle. Hydrophilic
wires are especially useful to negotiate strictures
and to pass tortuous areas but are more dif fi cult to
exchange accessories and to maintain stability
with removal of the endoscope.
152
Pancreatic Applications
There are several potential applications for the
use of SEMS in the treatment of pancreatic diseases though the data for these indications is limited and controversial.
Pancreatic Duct Strictures
Painful chronic pancreatitis with a dominant
main pancreatic duct (PD) stricture is usually
managed with endoscopic placement of one or
more plastic stents [ 80– 85 ] . The majority of
patients with chronic pancreatitis who respond to
pancreatic stent placement experience sustained
clinical improvement after stent removal [ 86– 88 ] .
A subset of patients experience recurrent pain
caused by recurrent or persistent stricture of the
main pancreatic duct [ 79, 81, 82, 85– 87 ] . For
these refractory strictures in patients with
advanced chronic pancreatitis, placement of the
maximally permitted number of large-diameter
(8.5–11 Fr) plastic stents has been shown to be
effective in allowing durable stricture resolution
and preventing recurrent pain in a majority of
patients [ 82 ] .
As an alternative to plastic stents, SEMS
have been used to treat benign pancreatic strictures. It must be emphasized that the use of
SEMS in the main pancreatic duct is highly
controversial and should be undertaken with
caution if at all. Placement of UCSEMS for
benign pancreatic duct strictures is associated
with epithelial hyperplasia, tissue embedding,
and lack of removability and should not be used
in benign disease but may be acceptable for palliation of intractable pain or recurrent pancreatitis in patients with unresectable periampullary
and pancreatic malignancies and underlying
ductal obstruction.
The use of removable CSEMS in patients
with benign pancreatic strictures is controversial and not advocated because of potential for
occlusion of side branches and induction of new
strictures. Additionally, the relative oversize of
W. Leung et al.
the stent to the duct is a concern since traditional
biliary SEMS are 8 and 10 mm in diameter. In
one study, FCSEMS were placed in patients
with chronic pancreatic duct strictures for 3
months with a high rate of recurrent pain after
removal. After another 3-month period of
FCSEMS placement, improvement was sustained [ 20 ] . This raises the question of the optimal duration of stent placement [ 89 ] . A longer
duration of stenting may be needed to induce
suf fi cient remodeling [ 21 ] . More prolonged
placement of FCSEMS, however, may increase
the risk of stent occlusion or disintegration of
the covering membrane with embedding and
lack of removability.
In a study by Park et al., FCSEMS were
placed for 2 months to treat benign PD strictures with good ef fi cacy and relative safety, but
the greatest problem was frequent stent migration [ 31 ] . The same group recently showed
temporary 3-month placement of modi fi ed
FCSEMS with antimigration features was effective in resolving pancreatic duct strictures in
chronic pancreatitis, with an acceptable safety
pro fi le and limited stent migration [ 31 ] . A minor-
ity of the patients developed asymptomatic
focal de novo pancreatic strictures. More robust,
long-term studies using removable FCSEMS in
chronic pancreatitis patients with dominant
strictures are needed before CSEMS can be
recommended.
Pancreatic Fluid Collections
Pancreatic fl uid collections (PFCs) develop secondary to either fl uid leakage or pancreatic necrosis after acute pancreatitis, chronic pancreatitis,
surgery, or abdominal trauma [ 90– 93 ] . The pres-
ence of underlying ductal damage, the severity of
acute pancreatitis, and the maturation of the collection in relation to the onset of acute pancreatitis are factors that in fl uence the formation and
composition of the PFC [
PFC drainage include infection, pain, gastric outlet or biliary obstruction, leakage, fi stulization,
and enlargement [
94– 97 ] . Indications for
94– 98 ] . Therapeutic options
15310 Biliary and Pancreatic Stents: Indications and Placement Techniques
for PFCs include surgical, percutaneous, and
endoscopic drainage. Over the last decade, endoscopic drainage of PFCs has been the procedure
of choice in many tertiary-care institutions [
99, 100 ] . Clinical success rates of 70–87% have
been reported, with complication rates of 11–34%
[ 100, 101 ] .
Endoscopic drainage of PFCs may be achieved
by transmural or transpapillary placement of
plastic endoprostheses [ 94, 102 ] . The evolution
of EUS has extended the indications for transmural drainage to include pancreatic abscesses,
organized lique fi ed necrosis, and nonbulging
PFCs [ 31, 103 ] .
A major area of interest is the type of stent
used for endoscopic transmural drainage. The
conventional technique is placement of one or
more 10 Fr plastic stents but with the need for
multiple revisions in 17.7–27% of cases [ 104, 105 ] .
The use of biliary FCSEMS to create a temporary
access fi stula as a conduit for endoscopic drainage of lique fi ed fl uid collections has been studied
in small case series and has shown to be effective [ 106 ] .
94,
Pancreatic Necrosis
Another use of large-diameter metal stents
was recently described. A fully covered esophageal SEMS was placed through a percutaneously
created tract into a retroperitoneal necrotic collection to allow a portal for direct endoscopic
necrosectomy [
108 ] .
Pancreatolithiasis
Endoscopic clearance of large or impacted
stones in the main pancreatic duct remains a
clinical challenge in patients with chronic pancreatitis and pancreatic strictures. In a study by
Yang and colleagues, a technically modi fi ed
uncovered self-expandable metallic pancreatic
stent was implanted in the pancreatic duct in
four patients and was removed for 4–7 days later
after the stent allowed stricture dilation [ 109 ] .
The calculi were endoscopically removed in all
four patients without severe complications. At a
follow-up of 9–15 months, no major complications or stone recurrence occurred. This small
study suggests that this technique could be an
alternative to extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in the management of large pancreatic
duct stones.
Endoscopic drainage of symptomatic sterile or
infected walled-off (organized pancreatic necrosis) is dif fi cult because the solid debris needs to
be evacuated, which cannot be achieved with
small-diameter plastic or metal stents. A study by
Belle et al. described temporary use of a specially
designed large-diameter PCSEMS to keep the
gastrostomy tract open for drainage of walled-off
necrosis and allow passage of the endoscope into
the necrosis for endoscopic necrosectomy [
The stent had a diameter of 20–25 mm and a
length of 50 mm and was placed following the
fi rst transgastric necrosectomy. After a treatment
period of 7–11 days involving 2–3 endoscopic
procedures, clinical success was achieved, de fi ned
as complete removal of necrosis, in all cases
without major complications. The stent was subsequently removed.
107 ] .
Conclusion
Signi fi cant improvements in SEMS design and the
evolution of EUS have spawned newer indications
and placement techniques that previously could
only be imagined. A variety of new stents are in
the developmental phase including drug-eluting
SEMS covered with antitumor agents, biodegradable stents, and a new lumen-apposing stent that
has been shown in animals to be effective for transluminal drainage of nonadherent extraintestinal
fl uid collections. Although SEMS are an exciting
development in the management of several hepatobiliary and pancreatic disorders, other options
are possible in some patients, and these are best
explored within multidisciplinary teams that
include surgeons, radiologists, and oncologists.
154
W. Leung et al.
References
1. Bakhru MR, Foley PL, Gatesman J, et al. Fully covered self-expanding stents placed temporarily in the
bile duct: safety pro fi le and histologic classi fi cation
in a porcine model. BMC Gastroenterol. 2011;11:76.
2. Baron TH. Covered self-expandable metal stents for
benign biliary tract diseases. Curr Opin Gastroenterol.
2011;27:262–7.
3. Judah JR, Draganov PV. Endoscopic therapy of
benign biliary strictures. World J Gastroenterol.
2007;13:3531–9.
4. Hammel P, Couvelard A, O’Toole D, et al. Regression
of liver fi brosis after biliary drainage in patients with
chronic pancreatitis and stenosis of the common bile
duct. N Engl J Med. 2001;344:418–23.
5. Warshaw AL, Schapiro RH, Ferrucci JT, et al.
Persistent obstructive jaundice, cholangitis, and
biliary cirrhosis due to common bile duct stenosis
in chronic pancreatitis. Gastroenterology. 1976;
70: 562–7.
6. Quintero GA, Patino JF. Surgical management of
benign strictures of the biliary tract. World J Surg.
2001;25:1245–50.
7. Smits ME, Rauws EA, van Gulik TM, et al. Longterm results of endoscopic stenting and surgical
drainage for biliary stricture due to chronic pancreatitis. Br J Surg. 1996;83:764–8.
8. Dumonceau JM, Deviere J, Delhaye M, et al. Plastic
and metal stents for postoperative benign bile duct
strictures: the best and the worst. Gastrointest
Endosc. 1996;47:8–17.
9. Tocchi A, Mazzoni G, Liotta G, et al. Management
of benign biliary strictures: biliary enteric anastomosis vs endoscopic stenting. Arch Surg. 2000;135:
153–7.
10. Frattaroli FM, Reggio D, Guadalaxara A, et al.
Benign biliary strictures: a review of 21 years of
experience. J Am Coll Surg. 1996;183:506–13.
11. Berkelhammer C, Kortan P, Haber GB. Endoscopic
biliary prostheses as treatment for benign postoperative bile duct strictures. Gastrointest Endosc.
1989;35:95–101.
12. Draganov P, Hoffman B, Marsh W, et al. Long-term
outcome in patients with benign biliary strictures
treated endoscopically with multiple stents.
Gastrointest Endosc. 2002;55:680–6.
13. Costamagna G, Pandol fi M, Mutignani M, et al.
Long-term results of endoscopic management of
postoperative bile duct strictures with increasing
numbers of stents. Gastrointest Endosc. 2001;54:
162–8.
14. Davids PH, Groen AK, Rauws EA, et al. Randomised
trial of self-expanding metal stents versus polyethylene stents for distal malignant biliary obstruction.
Lancet. 1992;340:1488–92.
15. Kaassis M, Boyer J, Dumas R, et al. Plastic or metal
stents for malignant stricture of the common bile
duct? Results of a randomized prospective study.
Gastrointest Endosc. 2003;57:178–82.
16. Knyrim K, Wagner HJ, Pausch J, et al. A prospective, randomized, controlled trial of metal stents for
malignant obstruction of the common bile duct.
Endoscopy. 1993;25:207–12.
17. Wagner HJ, Knyrim K, Vakil N, et al. Plastic
endoprostheses versus metal stents in the palliative
treatment of malignant hilar biliary obstruction.
A prospective and randomized trial. Endoscopy.
1993;25:213–8.
18. Katsinelos P, Paikos D, Kountouras J, et al.
Tannenbaum and metal stents in the palliative treatment of malignant distal bile duct obstruction: a
comparative study of patency and cost effectiveness.
Surg Endosc. 2006;20:1587–93.
19. Mahajan A, Ho H, Sauer B, et al. Temporary placement of fully covered self-expandable metal stents in
benign biliary strictures: midterm evaluation (with
video). Gastrointest Endosc. 2009;70:303–9.
20. Sauer B, Talreja J, Ellen K, et al. Temporary placement of a fully covered self-expandable metal stent in
the pancreatic duct for management of symptomatic
refractory chronic pancreatitis: preliminary data
(with videos). Gastrointest Endosc. 2008;68:1173–8.
21. Park DH, Kim MH, Moon SH, et al. Feasibility and
safety of placement of a newly designed, fully covered self-expandable metal stent for refractory
benign pancreatic ductal strictures: a pilot study
(with video). Gastrointest Endosc. 2008;68:1182–9.
22. Cahen DL, Rauws EA, Gouma DJ, et al. Removable
fully covered self-expandable metal stents in the
treatment of common bile duct strictures due to
chronic pancreatitis: a case series. Endoscopy.
2008;40:697–700.
23. Catalano MF, Linder JD, George S, et al. Treatment
of symptomatic distal common bile duct stenosis
secondary to chronic pancreatitis: comparison of
single vs. multiple simultaneous stents. Gastrointest
Endosc. 2004;60:945–52.
24. Kahaleh M, Behm B, Clarke BW, et al. Temporary
placement of covered self-expandable metal stents in
benign biliary strictures: a new paradigm? (with
video). Gastrointest Endosc. 2008;67:446–54.
25. Park DH, Kim MH, Choi JS, et al. Covered versus
uncovered Wallstent for malignant extrahepatic biliary obstruction: a cohort comparative analysis. Clin
Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2006;4:790–6.
26. Traina M, Tarantino I, Barresi L, et al. Ef fi cacy and
safety of fully covered elf-expandable metallic stents
in biliary complications after liver transplantation: a
preliminary study. Liver Transpl. 2009;15:1493–8.
27. Wang AY, Ellen K, Berg CL, et al. Fully covered
self-expandable metallic stents in the management
of complex biliary leaks: preliminary data – a case
series. Endoscopy. 2009;41:781–6.
28. Eloubeidi MA, Lopes TL. Novel removable internally fully covered self-expanding metal esophageal
stent: feasibility, technique of removal, and tissue
15510 Biliary and Pancreatic Stents: Indications and Placement Techniques
response in humans. Am J Gastroenterol.
2009;104:1374–81.
29. Park DH, Koo JE, Oh J, et al. EUS-guided biliary
drainage with one-step placement of a fully covered
metal stent for malignant biliary obstruction: a prospective feasibility study. Am J Gastroenterol.
2009;104:2168–74.
30. Park DH, Song TJ, Eum J, et al. EUS-guided hepaticogastrostomy with a fully covered metal stent as
the biliary diversion technique for an occluded biliary metal stent after a failed ERCP (with videos).
Gastrointest Endosc. 2010;71:413–9.
31. Park DH, Lee SS, Lee TH, et al. Anchoring fl ap versus fl ared end, fully covered self-expandable metal
stents to prevent migration in patients with benign
biliary strictures: a multicenter, prospective, comparative pilot study (with videos). Gastrointest
Endosc. 2011;73:64–70.
32. Park JK, Moon JH, Choi HJ, et al. Anchoring of a
fully covered self-expandable metal stent with a 5F
double-pigtail plastic stent to prevent migration in
the management of benign biliary strictures. Am J
Gastroenterol. 2011;106:1761–5. doi:
ajg.2011.212
33. Poley JW, Van Tilburg AJ, Kuipers EJ, Bruno MJ.
Breaking the barrier: using extractable fully covered
metal stents to treat benign biliary strictures.
Gastrointest Endosc. 2011;74:916–20.
34. Baron TH, Poterucha JJ. Insertion and removal of
covered expandable metal stents for closure of complex biliary leaks. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol.
2006;4:381–6.
35. Wang AY, Ellen K, Berg CL, Schmitt TM, Kahaleh
M. Fully covered self-expandable metallic stents
in the management of complex biliary leaks:
preliminary data – a case series. Endoscopy. 2009;
41: 781–6.
36. Ferreira LE, Baron TH. Post-sphincterotomy bleeding: who, what, when, and how. Am J Gastroenterol.
2007;102:2850–8.
37. DiPisa M, Tarantino I, Barresi L, et al. Placement of
covered self-expandable metal biliary stent for the
treatment of severe post-sphincterotomy bleeding:
outcomes of two cases. Gastroenterol Res Pract.
2010;2010:138748.
38. Itoi T, Yasuda I, Doi S, et al. Endoscopic hemostasis
using covered metallic stent placement for uncontrolled post-endoscopic sphincterotomy bleeding.
Endoscopy. 2011;43:369–72.
39. Jeon HJ, Han JH, Park S, et al. Endoscopic sphincterotomy-related perforation in the common bile
duct successfully treated by placement of a covered
metal stent. Endoscopy. 2011; 43(Supl 2)
UCTN:E295–E96.
40. Cere fi ce M, Sauer B, Javaid M, et al. Complex biliary stones: treatment with removable self-expandable metal stents: a new approach (with videos).
Gastrointest Endosc. 2011;74:520–6.
.
10.1038/
41. van der Gaag NA, Rauws EA, van Eijck CH, et al.
Preoperative biliary drainage for cancer of the head
of the pancreas. N Engl J Med. 2010;362:129–37.
42. Baron TH, Kozarek RA. Preoperative biliary stents
in pancreatic cancer—proceed with caution. N Engl
J Med. 2010;362:170–2.
43. Baron TH, Petersen BT, Mergener K, et al. Quality
indicators for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Am J Gastroenterol. 2006;101:892–7.
44. Bonin EA, Barton TH. Preoperative biliary stents in
pancreatic cancer. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci.
2011;18:621–9.
45. Moss AC, Morris E, Leyden J, MacMathuna P.
Malignant distal biliary obstruction: a systematic
review and meta-analysis of endoscopic and surgical
bypass results. Cancer Treat Rev. 2007;33:213.
46. Saleem A, Leggett CL, Murad MH, Baron TH.
Meta-analysis of randomized trials comparing the
patency of covered and uncovered self-expandable
metal stents for palliation of distal malignant bile
duct obstruction. Gastrointest Endosc. 2011;74:321–
7. e1-3.
47. Davids PH, Groen AK, Rauws EA, et al. Randomised
trial of self-expanding metal stents versus polyethylene stents for distal malignant biliary obstruction.
Lancet. 1992;340(8834–8835):1488–92.
48. Knyrim K, Wagner HJ, Pausch J, Vakil N. A prospective, randomized, controlled trial of metal stents
for malignant obstruction of the common bile duct.
Endoscopy. 1993;25:207–12.
49. Soderlund C, Linder S. Covered metal versus plastic
stents for malignant common bile duct stenosis: a
prospective, randomized, controlled trial. Gastrointest
Endosc. 2006;63:986–95.
50. Telford JJ, Carr-Locke DL, Baron TH, et al. A randomized trial comparing uncovered and partially
covered self-expandable metal stents in the palliation of distal malignant biliary obstruction.
Gastrointest Endosc. 2010;72:907–14.
51. Bismuth H, Castaing D, Traynor O. Resection or
palliation: priority of surgery in the treatment of
hilar cancer. World J Surg. 1988;12:39–47.
52. Larghi A, Tringali A, Lecca PG, et al. Management
of hilar biliary strictures. Am J Gastroenterol.
2008;103:458.
53. De Palma GD, Galloro G, Siciliano S, et al. Unilateral
versus bilateral endoscopic hepatic duct drainage in
patients with malignant hilar biliary obstruction:
results of a prospective, randomized, and controlled
study. Gastrointest Endosc. 2001;53:547–53.
54. Naitoh I, Ohara H, Nakazawa T, et al. Unilateral versus bilateral endoscopic metal stenting for malignant
hilar biliary obstruction. J Gastroenterol Hepatol.
2009;24:552–7.
55. Vienne A, Hobeika E, Gouya H, et al. Prediction of
drainage effectiveness during endoscopic stenting of
malignant hilar strictures: the role of liver volume
assessment. Gastrointest Endosc. 2010;72:728–35.
156
W. Leung et al.
56. Chennat J, Waxman I. Initial performance pro fi le of
a new 6F self-expanding metal stent for palliation of
malignant hilar biliary obstruction. Gastrointest
Endosc. 2010;72:632–6.
57. Chen VK, Arguedas MR, Baron TH. Expandable
metal biliary stents before pancreaticoduodenectomy
for pancreatic cancer: a Monte-Carlo decision analysis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2005;3:1229–37.
58. Lawrence C, Howell DA, Conklin DE, et al. Delayed
pancreaticoduodenectomy for cancer patients with
prior ERCP-placed, nonforeshortening, self-expanding
metal stents: a positive outcome. Gastrointest
Endosc. 2006;63:804–7.
59. Bakken JC, Baron TH. Metal stents and biliary
obstruction secondary to lymphoma: a tale of caution. Dig Dis Sci. 2010;55:3636.
60. Artifon EL, Sakai P, Ishioka S, et al. Endoscopic
sphincterotomy before deployment of covered metal
stent is associated with greater complication rate: a
prospective randomized controlled trial. J Clin
Gastroenterol. 2008;42:815–9.
61. Banerjee N, Hilden K, Baron TH, Adler DG.
Endoscopic biliary sphincterotomy is not required
for transpapillary SEMs placement for biliary
obstruction. Dig Dis Sci. 2011;56:591–5.
62. Suk KT, Kim HS, Kim JW et al. Risk factors for
cholecystitis after metal stent placement in malignant biliary obstruction. Gastrointest Endosc.
2006;64(4):522–9.
63. Ishii K, Itoi T, Sofuni A, et al. Endoscopic removal
and trimming of distal self-expandable metallic biliary stents. World J Gastroenterol. 2011;17:2652–7.
64. Chahal P, Baron TH. Expandable metal stents for
endoscopic bilateral stent-within-stent placement for
malignant hilar biliary obstruction. Gastrointest
Endosc. 2010;71:195–9.
65. Saleem A, Baron TH. Small diameter delivery system
allows expandable metal biliary stent placement using
a pediatric colonoscope in surgically altered anatomy.
Endoscopy. 2011;43(Suppl 2):UCTN:369–70.
66. Tan DM, Lillemoe KD, Fogel EL. A new technique
for endoscopic removal of uncovered biliary selfexpandable metal stents: stent-in-stent technique
with a fully covered biliary stent. Gastrointest
Endosc. 2012;75:923–5.
67. Arias Dachary FJ, Chioccioli C, Deprez PH.
Application of the “covered-stent-in-uncoveredstent” technique for easy and safe removal of embedded biliary uncovered SEMS with tissue ingrowth.
Endoscopy. 2010;42(Suppl 2):E304–5.
68. Speer AG, Cotton PB, Russell RC, et al. Randomised
trial of endoscopic versus percutaneous stent insertion in malignant obstructive jaundice. Lancet.
1987;2:57–62.
69. Inal M, Aksunger E, Akgul E, et al. Percutaneous
placement of metallic stents in malignant biliary
obstruction: one-stage or two-stage procedure? Predilate or not? Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2003;26:
40–5.
70. Beissert M, Wittenberg G, Sandstede J, et al. Metallic
stents and plastic endoprostheses in percutaneous
treatment of biliary obstruction. Z Gastroenterol.
2002;40:503–10.
71. Pinol V, Castells A, Bordas JM, et al. Percutaneous
self-expanding metal stents versus endoscopic polyethylene endoprostheses for treating malignant biliary obstruction: randomized clinical trial. Radiology.
2002;225:27–34.
72. Doctor N, Dick R, Rai R, et al. Results of percutaneous
plastic stents for malignant distal biliary obstruction
following failed endoscopic stent insertion and comparison with current literature on expandable metallic
stents. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 1999;11:775–80.
73. Kaskarelis IS, Papadaki MG, Papageorgiou GN,
et al. Long-term follow-up in patients with malignant biliary obstruction after percutaneous placement of uncovered Wallstent endoprostheses. Acta
Radiol. 1999;40:528–33.
74. Wayman J, Mans fi eld JC, Matthewson K, et al.
Combined percutaneous and endoscopic procedures
for bile duct obstruction: simultaneous and delayed
techniques compared. Hepatogastroenterology.
2003;50:915–8.
75. Baron TH. Management of simultaneous biliary and
duodenal obstruction: the endoscopic perspective.
Gut Liver. 2010;4(Suppl1):S50–6.
76. Topazian M, Baron TH. Endoscopic fenestration of
duodenal stents using argon plasma to facilitate
ERCP. Gastrointest Endosc. 2009;69:166–9.
77. Itoi T, Isayama H, Sofuni A, et al. Stent selection and
tips on placement technique of EUS-guided biliary
drainage: transduodenal and transgastric stenting.
J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci. 2011;18:664–72.
78. Nguyen-Tang T, Binmoeller KF, Sanchez-Yague A,
Shah JN. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided transhepatic anterograde self-expandable metal stent
(SEMS) placement across malignant biliary obstruction. Endoscopy. 2010;42:232–6.
79. Kim YS, Gupta K, Mallery S, et al. Endoscopic
ultrasound rendezvous for bile duct access using a
transduodenal approach: cumulative experience at a
single center. A case series. Endoscopy. 2010;42:
496–502.
80. Smits ME, Badiga SM, Rauws EA, et al. Long-term
results of pancreatic stents in chronic pancreatitis.
Gastrointest Endosc. 1995;42:461–7.
81. Adler DG, Lichtenstein D, Baron TH, et al. The role
of endoscopy in patients with chronic pancreatitis.
Gastrointest Endosc. 2006;63:933–7.
82. Costamagna G, Bulajic M, Tringali A, et al. Multiple
stenting of refractory pancreatic duct strictures in
severe chronic pancreatitis: long-term results.
Endoscopy. 2006;38:254–9.
83. Delhaye M, Arvanitakis M, Bali M, et al. Endoscopic
therapy for chronic pancreatitis. Scand J Surg.
2005;94:143–53.
84. Testoni PA. Endoscopic stenting in benign pancreatic diseases. JOP. 2007;8:141–50.
15710 Biliary and Pancreatic Stents: Indications and Placement Techniques
85. Topazian M, Aslanian H, Andersen D. Outcome following endoscopic stenting of pancreatic duct strictures in chronic pancreatitis. J Clin Gastroenterol.
2005;39:908–11.
86. Binmoeller KF, Jue P, Seifert H, et al. Endoscopic
pancreatic stent drainage in chronic pancreatitis and
a dominant stricture: long-term results. Endoscopy.
1995;27:638–44.
87. Eleftherladis N, Dinu F, Delhaye M, et al. Long-term
outcome after pancreatic stenting in severe chronic
pancreatitis. Endoscopy. 2005;37:223–30.
88. Farnbacher MJ, Muhldorfer S, Wehler M, et al.
Interventional endoscopic therapy in chronic pancreatitis including temporary stenting: a de fi nitive
treatment? Scand J Gastroenterol. 2006;41:111–7.
89. Ostroff JW. Pain and chronic pancreatitis: are we
really ready for metal in the pancreatic duct?
Gastrointest Endosc. 2008;68:1179–81.
90. Baillie J. Pancreatic pseudocysts (part I). Gastrointest
Endosc. 2004;59:873–9.
91. Yeo CL, Cameron JL, Sohn TA, et al. Six hundred
fi fty consecutive pancreaticoduodenectomies in the
1990s: pathology, complications, and outcomes.
Ann Surg. 1997;226:248–60.
92. Arvanitakis M, Delhaye M, Chamlou R, et al.
Endoscopic therapy for main pancreatic duct rupture
after silastic-ring vertical gastroplasty. Gastrointest
Endosc. 2005;62:143–51.
93. Kloppel G. Pseudocysts and other non-neoplastic
cysts of the pancreas. Semin Diagn Pathol. 2000;17:
7–15.
94. Baron TH, Harewood GC, Morgan DE, et al.
Outcome differences after endoscopic drainage of
pancreatic necrosis, acute pancreatic pseudocysts,
and chronic pancreatic pseudocysts. Gastrointest
Endosc. 2002;56:7–17.
95. Baron TH, Morgan DE. The diagnosis and management of fl uid collections associated with pancreatitis. Am J Med. 1997;102:555–63.
96. Yeo CJ, Bastidas JA, Lynch-Nyhan A, et al. The
natural history of pancreatic pseudocysts documented by computed tomography. Surg Gynecol
Obstet. 1990;170:411–7.
97. Bradley EL, Clements Jr JL, Gonzalez AC. The
natural history of pancreatic pseudocysts: a uni fi ed
concept of management. Am J Surg. 1979;137:
135–41.
98. Gouyon B, Levy P, Ruszniewski P, et al. Predictive
factors in the outcome of pseudocysts complicating
alcoholic chronic pancreatitis. Gut. 1997;41:821–5.
99. Binmoeller KF, Seifart H, Walter A, et al.
Transpapillary and transmural drainage of pancreatic pseudocysts. Gastrointest Endosc. 1995;42:
219–24.
100. Cahen D, Rauws E, Fockens P, et al. Endoscopic
drainage of pancreatic pseudocysts; long-term outcome and procedural factors associated with safe
and successful treatment. Endoscopy. 2005;37:
977–83.
101. Hookey LC, Debroux S, Delhaye M, et al. Endoscopic
drainage of pancreatic fl uid collections in 116
patients: a comparison of etiologies, drainage techniques, and outcomes. Gastrointest Endosc.
2006;63:635–43.
102. Delhaye M, Matos C, Deviere J. Endoscopic management of chronic pancreatitis. Gastrointest Endosc
Clin N Am. 2003;13:717–42.
103. Arvanitakis M, Delhaye M, Bali MA, et al. Pancreatic
fl uid collections: a randomized controlled trial
regarding stent removal after endoscopic transmural
drainage. Gastrointest Endosc. 2007;65:609–19.
104. Kruger M, Schneider AS, Manns MP, et al. Endoscopic
management of pancreatic pseudocysts or abscesses
after an EUS-guided 1-step procedure for initial
access. Gastrointest Endosc. 2006;63:409–16.
105. Lopes CV, Pesenti C, Bories E, et al. Endoscopicultrasound-guided endoscopic transmural drainage
of pancreatic pseudocysts and abscesses. Scand
J Gastroenterol. 2007;42:524–9.
106. Talreja JP, Shami VM, Ku J, et al. Transenteric drainage of pancreatic- fl uid collections with fully covered
self-expanding metallic stents (with video).
Gastrointest Endosc. 2008;68:1199–203. AS 91.
107. Belle S, Collet P, Post S, Kaehler G. Temporary cystogastrostomy with self-expanding metallic stents
for pancreatic necrosis. Endoscopy. 2010;42:493–5.
108. van Sonnenberg E, Wittich GR, Casola G, et al.
Percutaneous drainage of infected and noninfected
pancreatic pseudocysts: experience in 101 cases.
Radiology. 1989;170:757–61.
109. Yang XJ, Lin Y, Zeng X, et al. A minimally invasive
alternative for managing large pancreatic duct stones
using a modi fi ed expandable metal mesh stent.
Pancreatology. 2009;9:111–5.