Table 1.
Ref.
|
Study design
|
Study population (n)
|
Clinical indication
|
Technical success (%)
|
LAMS misdeployment (n)
|
LAMS type
|
Size of LAMS (mm)
|
Use of guidewire
|
LAMS flange misdeployed
|
Rescue therapy
|
Anderloni et al[20], 2019 | Retrospective single center | 46 | MBO | 93.5 | 3 | Hot Axios | - | No | Distal (1/3), not specified (2/3) | Rendezvous technique with transpapillary placement of 10 mm × 40 mm FCSEMS after advancing a guidewire through the existing fistula into the bile duct and then across the papilla (1/3); 10 mm × 10 mm LAMS placement through the existing fistula (1/3); double-pigtail plastic stent placement across the LAMS (1/3) |
Di Mitri R et al[21], 2022 | Retrospective single center | 31 | MBO | 80.6 | 7 | Hot Axios | 8 mm × 8 mm (6/7) 10 mm × 10 mm (1/7) | Yes | Distal | Over-the-wire FCSEMS placement (5/7); transpapillary percutaneous-transhepatic-endoscopic rendezvous (1/7); transpapillary laparoscopic-endoscopic rendezvous (1/7) |
Rajadurai et al[22], 2022 | Retrospective multicenter | 66 | MBO | 90.9 | 6 | Hot Axios | - | No (4/6). Yes (2/6) | Distal | Over-the-wire FCSEMS placement (2/6); laparotomy (2/6); EUS-GBD (1/6); palliation due to rapid deterioration (1/6) |
Jacques et al[23], 2019 | Retrospective multicenter | 52 | MBO | 88.5 | 4 | Hot Axios | - | - | Distal (1/4), proximal (1/4 intraperitoneal, 2/4 intraparietal) | Stent-in-stent strategy with SEMS (1/4); ERCP rendezvous (1/4); repeat classic EUS-CDS with SEMS (2/4) |
Jacques et al[24], 2020 | Retrospective multicenter | 70 | MBO | 98.6 | 1 | Hot Axios | - | - | No evidence of bile flow even if stent was correctly in situ | Stent-in-stent strategy |
El Chafic et al[25], 2019 | Retrospective multicenter | 67 | MBO | 95.5 | 2 | Hot Axios | - | Yes | - | Over the same guidewire FCSEMS placement (all) |
Fugazza et al[26], 2022 | Retrospective multicenter | 256 | MBO | 93.3 | 17 | Hot Axios | - | - | - | Over the guidewire SEMS placement (10/17); deployment of a second LAMS (4/17); EUS-guided rendezvous with subsequent placement of a transpapillary stent (3/17) |
Hindryckx and Degroote[27], 2021 | Retrospective single center | 13 | - | 92.3 | 1 | Hot Axios | 8 mm × 6 mm | Yes | Distal | Clip closure of duodenal defect and new EUS-CDS with 8 mm × 6 mm LAMS |
Armellini et al[28], 2023 | Case report | 1 | Difficult biliary lithiasis | - | 1 | Hot Axios | 8 mm × 8 mm | Yes | Distal | Rendezvous technique with transpapillary placement of FCSEMS after advancing a guidewire directly through the LAMS and choledochal breach into the bile duct and then across the papilla |
Teoh et al[29], 2021 | Prospective multicenter | 26 | MBO | 88.5 | 3 | Cold spaxus | - | Yes | Entirely into the bile duct | Over the guidewire SEMS placement |
Fugazza et al[30], 2020 | Case report | 1 | Pancreatic adenocarcinoma | - | 1 | Axios | 6 mm × 8 mm | Yes | Proximal | Stent-in-stent strategy using SEMS |
Brückner et al[31], 2015 | Case series | 5 | MBO | 80 | 1 | Cold Axios | 6 mm × 8 mm | Yes | Distal | Over the guidewire stent placement |
Vanella et al[32], 2023 | Retrospective study of prospectively maintained databases | 93 | MBO | 97.8 | 4 | Hot Axios | - | No | Distal (2/4); misdeployments after both flanges release (2/4) | Repeat EUS-CDS (1/4); inserting a guidewire through the LAMS catheter followed by over the guidewire LAMS placement (1/4) (the effective rescue therapies were counted as technical success); PTBD (2/4) |
de Benito Sanz et al[33], 2021 | Retrospective single center | 37 | MBO | 100 | 4 | - | - | - | Distal (2/4); not specified (2/4) | Stent-in-stent strategy (the effective rescue therapies were counted as technical success) |
Garcia-Sumalla et al[34], 2021 | Retrospective multicenter | 41 | MBO | 95.1 | 2 | Hot Axios | - | - | No evidence of bile flow even if stent was correctly in situ; distal flange | Stent-in-stent strategy using SEMS; rendezvous technique with placement of a transpapillary FCSEMS |
Sanchez-Ocana et al[35], 2022 | Case report | 1 | Pancreatic adenocarcinoma | - | 1 | Axios | 8 mm × 8 mm | Yes | Distal | EUS-guided gallbladder drainage as a portal for antegrade transcystic guidewire passage, followed by rendezvous ERCP with placement of a biliary metal stent and clips to seal the perforation |
Graves et al[36], 2021 | Case report | 1 | Pancreatic metastasis of renal cell carcinoma | - | 1 | Axios | 10 mm × 10 mm | No | Distal | A bridging 10 mm × 8 mm FCSEMS was deployed over the guidewire and through theccessing LAMS |
Chin et al[37], 2020 | Retrospective analysis of a prospectively maintained database | 56 | MBO | 100 | 1 | Axios | - | - | - | Over the guidewire tubular biliary stent placement (the effective rescue therapy was counted as technical success) |
On et al[38], 2022 | Retrospective multicenter | 120 | MBO | 90.8 | 7 | Hot Axios | - | No (4/7). Yes (3/7) | - | Bridging stents (5/7), PTBD (1/7), conservative management (1/7) |
Ligresti et al[39], 2018 | Case report | 1 | Pancreatic adenocarcinoma | - | 1 | Axios | 8 mm × 8 mm | Yes | Distal | Reinsertion of the delivery system over the guide wire and second deployment of distal flange into common bile duct under EUS guidance |
MBO: Malignant biliary obstruction; FCSEMS: Fully covered self-expanding metal stent; SEMS: Self-expanding metal stent; LAMS: Lumen-apposing metal stent; EUS-GBD: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided gallbladder drainage; ERCP: Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography; EUS-CDS: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided choledochoduodenostomy; PTBD: Percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage.