Skip to main content
. 2022 May 7;28(17):1860–1870. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v28.i17.1860

Table 2.

Outcome of biliary self-expandable metallic stent placement

Variable
Hilar group (n = 83)
Lower group (n = 44)
P value
Year of procedure 0.18
2011-2015 48 (57.8) 31 (70.5)
2016-2021 35 (42.2) 13 (29.5)
Diameter of SEMS 1.0
8 mm 1 (1.2) 0 (0)
10 mm 82 (98.8) 44 (100)
USEMS:CSEMS 35:48 20:24 0.85
USEMS used
BileRush 2 (2.4) 1 (2.3) 1
Bonastent 1 (1.2) 0 (0) 1
HANARO 1 (1.2) 0 (0) 1
Niti-S Large cell 9 (10.8) 5 (11.4) 1
WallFlex 24 (28.9) 7 (15.9) 0.13
X Suit NIR 0 (0) 2 (4.5) 0.12
Zilver 0 (0) 1 (2.3) 0.35
Zilver 635 4 (4.8) 6 (13.6) 0.09
CSEMS used
Bonastent 0 (0) 1 (2.3) 0.35
HANARO 3 (3.6) 1 (2.3) 1
Niti-S Comvi 11 (13.3) 7 (15.9) 0.79
WallFlex 28 (33.7) 7 (15.9) 0.038
X Suit NIR 0 (0) 6 (13.6) < 0.01
Technical success 83 (100) 44 (100)
Functional success 81 (97.6) 41 (93.2) 0.34
Adverse events 2 (2.4) 0 (0) 0.54
Pancreatitis 2 0
Mild 2 0
Post-EST bleeding 1 0
Severe 1 0
SEMS shortening 1 1 (1.3) 2 (4.7) 0.28
SEMS dysfunction 2 (2.4) 18 (41) < 0.01
Cause of SEMS dysfunction
Ingrowth 1 3
Overgrowth 1 2
Ingrowth and overgrowth 8
Top edge closed by CBD wall 4
Dislocation 1
Observational period, months 4.16 ± 5.76 9.12 ± 12.07 0.012

Values are presented as n, n (%), or mean ± SD.

1

The presence or absence of SEMS shortening was confirmed in 79 patients in the Hilar group and 43 patients in the Lower group.

SEMS: Self-expandable metallic stent; USEMS: Uncovered SEMS; CSEMS: Covered SEMS; EST: Endoscopic sphincterotomy; CBD: Common bile duct.