Current status of endoscopic biliary drainage for unresectable malignant hilar biliary strictures

Table 1 The results of comparison between metallic and plastic stents

Ref.	No. of patients		Successful deployment % (n)		P value	Patency (mo)		P value
	MS	PS	MS	PS		MS	PS
Sangchan et al[1]	54	54	83 (45/54)	85 (46/54)	0.792	3.4	1.2	> 0.001
Perdue et al[2]	35	33	97 (34/35)	85 (28/33)		NA	NA
Liberato et al[3]	249	231	99 (246/249)	88 (204/231)	> 0.001	6.3	4.7	> 0.0001
Mukai et al[4]	30	30	100 (30/30)	100 (30/30)		12	3.7	0.0002

PS: Plastic stents; MS: Metallic stents; NA: Not available.

Table 2 The results of comparison between unilateral and bilateral stent deployment

Ref.	No. of patients		Successful deployment [% (n)]		P value	Successful drainage [% (n)]		P value	Stent patency (mo)		P value	Survival period (mo)		P value
	Unilateral	Bilateral	Unilateral	Bilateral		Unilateral	Bilateral		Unilateral	Bilateral		Unilateral	Bilateral
De Palma et al[9]	PS 79	PS 78	89 (70/79)	77 (60/78)	0.041	81 (64/79)	73 (57/78)	0.0482	NA	NA		4.7	4.7	0.482
Mukai et al[4]	PS 15	PS 15	100 (15/15)	100 (15/15)		100 (15/15)	100 (15/15)		3.4	3.7	0.746	NA	NA
	MS 14	MS 16	100 (14/14)	100 (16/16)		100 (14/14)	100 (16/16)		12.1	9.8	0.3467	NA	NA
Liberato et al[3]	PS 27	PS 40	NA	95 (38/40)		NA	95 (38/40)		4.0	4.2	0.0004	NA	NA
	MS 33	MS 45	NA	93 (42/45)		NA	93 (42/45)		5.6	6.8	> 0.0001	NA	NA
Chang et al[10]	PS or MS 69	PS or MS 29	NA	NA		NA	NA		NA	NA		2.7	7.5	> 0.01
Naitoh et al[11]	MS 17	MS 29	100 (17/17)	90 (26/29)		94 (16/17)	90 (25/26)		7.0	16.3	0.009	5.5	6.8	0.559
Iwano et al[12]	MS 63	MS 19	95 (60/63)	90 (17/19)		NA	NA		4.4	4.2	0.3220	5.7	6.1	0.4908

PS: Plastic stents; MS: Metallic stents; NA: Not available.

Table 3 The results of comparison between stent-in stent and side-by-side method for deployment of bilateral metallic stents

Ref.	Method for deployment	No. of patients	Successful deployment % (n)	Successful drainage % (n)	Occlusion % (n)	Stent patency (mo)
Kawamoto et al[16]	SIS	9	100 (9/9)	100 (9/9)	33 (3/9)	NA
Lee et al[17]	SIS	10	80 (8/10)	100 (8/8)	25 (2/8)	7.2
Park et al[18]	SIS	35	94 (33/35)	100 (33/33)	6 (2/33)	5
Kim et al[19]	SIS	34	85 (29/34)	100 (29/29)	31 (9/29)	6.2
Chahal et al[20]	SIS	21	100 (21/21)	NA	38 (8/21)	6.3
Kogure et al[21]	SIS	12	100 (12/12)	92 (11/12)	50 (6/12)	6.7
Hwang et al[22]	SIS	30	87 (26/30)	100 (26/26)	39 (10/26)	4.7
Lee et al[23]	SIS	84	95 (80/84)	93 (78/84)	31 (24/78)	7.9
Dumas et al[24]	SBS	45	73 (33/45)	100 (33/33)	3 (1/33)	NA
Cheng et al[25]	SBS	36	97 (35/36)	NA	31 (11/35)	5.6
Chennat et al[26]	SBS	16	100 (16/16)	75 (11/16)	25 (4/16)	4.3
Lee et al[27]	SBS	44	91 (40/44)	98 (39/40)	45 (18/40)	5.2

SIS: Stent-in-stent; SBS: Side-by-side; NA: Not available.

Table 4 The results of re-intervention after stent occlusion in the patients undergoing deployment of bilateral metallic stents

Ref.	Method for deployment	No. of patients	Occlusion% (n)	Endoscopic re-intervention % (n)	Bilateral or multiple drainage at endoscopic re-intervention % (n)
Naitoh et al[28]	SIS	24	42 (10/24)	90 (9/10)	NA
	SBS	25	20 (5/25)	100 (5/5)	NA
Lee et al[27]	SBS	40	45 (18/40)	92 (12/13)1	50 (6/12)
Fujii et al[33]	SIS	55	55 (30/55)	100 (30/30)	67 (20/30)
Lee et al[23]	SIS	78	31 (24/78)	96 (23/24)	83 (20/24)
Law et al[31]	SBS	17	53 (9/17)	75 (6/8)	75 (6/8)
	SIS	7	43 (3/7)	100 (3/3)	100 (3/3)

¹Five patients with comorbidity underwent initial percutaneous intervention. SIS: Stent-in-stent; SBS: Side-by-side; NA: Not available.