首页> 外文期刊>Gastrointestinal Endoscopy >Palliative treatment with self-expandable metallic stents in patients with advanced type III or IV hilar cholangiocarcinoma: a percutaneous versus endoscopic approach.
【24h】

Palliative treatment with self-expandable metallic stents in patients with advanced type III or IV hilar cholangiocarcinoma: a percutaneous versus endoscopic approach.

机译:自膨胀金属支架对晚期III型或IV型肝门胆管癌的姑息治疗:经皮与内镜治疗。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Endoscopic or percutaneous biliary drainage with self-expandable metallic stents (SEMS) is widely used for the palliation of cholestasis in patients with advanced hilar cholangiocarcinoma. However, little is known about which is the better option in patients with advanced hilar cholangiocarcinoma. We compared the clinical outcomes of these 2 methods of biliary decompression in these patients. DESIGN AND SETTING: Multicenter retrospective study. PATIENTS: A total of 85 patients with newly diagnosed advanced hilar cholangiocarcinoma (Bismuth III or Bismuth IV) and who did not receive an operation, chemotherapy, or radiotherapy were retrospectively reviewed. Forty-four of the 85 received endoscopic SEMS and 41 received percutaneous SEMS. INTERVENTIONS: Endoscopic SEMS or percutaneous SEMS. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were similar in the 2 groups, but the rate of successful biliary decompression was significantly higher in the percutaneous SEMS group than in the endoscopic SEMS group (92.7% vs 77.3%, respectively, P= .049). Overall rates of procedure-related complications were similar for the 2 groups, but 1 death (from biliary sepsis) occurred in the endoscopic SEMS group. Median survival of patients in whom biliary drainage was successful initially, regardless of which procedure was performed, was much longer than that of patients who had failed biliary drainage (8.7 months vs 1.8 months, respectively, P< .001). Once successful biliary decompression had been achieved, median survival and stent patency duration were similar in the 2 study groups. LIMITATION: Retrospective study. CONCLUSIONS: Percutaneous SEMS may be chosen for initial biliary drainage in patients with advanced type III or IV hilar cholangiocarcinoma, given higher initial success rate and low level of procedure-related cholangitis.
机译:背景与目的:内镜或经皮自发性金属支架(SEMS)胆道引流术被广泛用于晚期肝门胆管癌患者的胆汁淤积的缓解。然而,对于晚期肺门胆管癌患者哪种选择更好是未知的。我们比较了这两种患者胆汁减压方法的临床效果。设计与设置:多中心回顾性研究。患者:回顾性分析了总共85例新诊断为晚期肝门胆管癌(铋三或铋四)且未接受手术,化学疗法或放射疗法的患者。 85例中有44例接受了内镜SEMS,41例接受了经皮SEMS。干预措施:内镜SEMS或经皮SEMS。主要观察指标和结果:两组基线特征相似,但经皮SEMS组胆道减压成功率显着高于内镜SEMS组(分别为92.7%和77.3%,P = .049)。 。两组的手术相关并发症的总发生率相似,但是内镜SEMS组发生1例死亡(因胆道败血症)。不管采用哪种手术,最初成功引流胆道的患者的中位生存期均比胆道引流失败的患者的中位生存期长得多(分别为8.7个月和1.8个月,P <.001)。一旦成功实现胆道减压,两个研究组的中位生存期和支架通畅时间相似。局限性:回顾性研究。结论:考虑到较高的初始成功率和较低的与手术相关的胆管炎水平,晚期III或IV型肝门胆管癌患者可以选择经皮SEMS进行初次胆道引流。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号