Suppr超能文献

支架置入术适用于肝门周围型胆管癌患者的术前胆道引流。

Inside stent placement is suitable for preoperative biliary drainage in patients with perihilar cholangiocarcinoma.

机构信息

Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mie University Graduate School of Medicine, 2-174, Edobashi, Tsu, Mie-prefecture, 514-8507, Japan.

Hepatobiliary Pancreatic and Transplant Surgery, Mie University Graduate School of Medicine, Tsu, Japan.

出版信息

BMC Gastroenterol. 2024 May 20;24(1):174. doi: 10.1186/s12876-024-03266-z.

Abstract

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: Endoscopic biliary stenting (EBS) is commonly used for preoperative drainage of localized perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (LPHC). This study retrospectively compared the utility of inside stent (IS) and conventional stent (CS) for preoperative EBS in patients with LPHC.

METHODS

EBS was performed in 56 patients with LPHC. EBS involved the placement of a CS (n = 32) or IS (n = 24). Treatment outcomes were compared between these two groups.

RESULTS

Preoperative recurrent biliary obstruction (RBO) occurred in 23 patients (71.9%) in the CS group and 7 (29.2%) in the IS group, with a significant difference (p = 0.002). The time to RBO (TRBO) was significantly longer in IS than in CS (log-rank: p < 0.001). The number of stent replacements was significantly lower in IS than CS [0.38 (0-3) vs. 1.88 (0-8), respectively; p < 0.001]. Gemcitabine-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) was administered to 26 patients (46.4%). Among patients who received NAC, TRBO was longer in IS than in CS group (log-rank: p < 0.001). The IS group had a significantly shorter preoperative and postoperative hospital stay than the CS group (20.0 vs. 37.0 days; p = 0.024, and 33.5 vs. 41.5 days; p = 0.016).  Both the preoperative and the postoperative costs were significantly lower in the IS group than in the CS group (p = 0.049 and p = 0.0034, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Compared with CS, IS for preoperative EBS in LPHC patients resulted in fewer complications and lower re-intervention rates. The fact that the IS group had shorter preoperative and postoperative hospital stays and lower costs both preoperatively and postoperatively compared to the CS group may suggest that the use of IS has the potential to benefit not only the patient but also the healthcare system.

摘要

背景/目的:内镜下胆道支架置入术(EBS)常用于局部肝门周围胆管癌(LPHC)的术前引流。本研究回顾性比较了 LPHC 患者术前 EBS 中使用内支架(IS)和传统支架(CS)的效果。

方法

对 56 例 LPHC 患者进行 EBS,其中 CS 组(n=32)和 IS 组(n=24)分别采用 CS 和 IS 治疗。比较两组患者的治疗效果。

结果

CS 组术前复发性胆道梗阻(RBO)发生率为 23 例(71.9%),IS 组为 7 例(29.2%),差异有统计学意义(p=0.002)。IS 组的 TRBO 显著长于 CS 组(log-rank:p<0.001)。IS 组的支架更换次数显著少于 CS 组[0.38(0-3)与 1.88(0-8);p<0.001]。26 例患者(46.4%)接受了吉西他滨为基础的新辅助化疗(NAC)。在接受 NAC 的患者中,IS 组的 TRBO 长于 CS 组(log-rank:p<0.001)。IS 组的术前和术后住院时间显著短于 CS 组(20.0 与 37.0 天;p=0.024,和 33.5 与 41.5 天;p=0.016)。IS 组的术前和术后费用均显著低于 CS 组(p=0.049 和 p=0.0034)。

结论

与 CS 相比,LPHC 患者术前 EBS 中使用 IS 可减少并发症和再干预的发生率。与 CS 组相比,IS 组的术前和术后住院时间更短,且术前和术后的费用更低,这可能表明使用 IS 不仅有利于患者,而且有利于医疗保健系统。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/0373/11106890/bd7fb563147a/12876_2024_3266_Fig1_HTML.jpg

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验