The Status of SEMS Versus Plastic Stents for Benign Biliary Strictures
- 19 Downloads
Purpose of Review
Benign biliary strictures can be treated with plastic stents and self-expandable metal stents (SEMS). This review article delineates the latest scientific evidence for their usage.
Despite evolving literature on both type of stents as treatment modalities of benign biliary strictures, which encompass mainly anastomotic strictures and strictures related to chronic pancreatitis, no final conclusions can be drawn regarding the superiority of a particular stent. SEMS tend to have higher stricture resolution rates and fewer procedural requirements which are partly offset by higher stent migration and stricture recurrence rates compared with plastic stents.
Additional studies focusing on new SEMS types with anti-migration features as well as cost-effectiveness calculations are necessary for clinical decision-making when treating patients with benign biliary strictures.
KeywordsBenign biliary strictures Review Plastic stent Metal stent
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent
This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.
Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance
- 15.Zimmerman MA, Baker T, Goodrich NP, Freise C, Hong JC, Kumer S, et al. Development, management, and resolution of biliary complications after living and deceased donor liver transplantation: a report from the adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation cohort study consortium. Liver Transpl. 2013;19(3):259–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 17.Tal AO, Finkelmeier F, Filmann N, Kylänpää L, Udd M, Parzanese I, et al. Multiple plastic stents versus covered metal stent for treatment of anastomotic biliary strictures after liver transplantation: a prospective, randomized, multicenter trial. Gastrointest Endosc. 2017;86(6):1038–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 18•.. Cote GA, et al. Effect of covered metallic stents compared with plastic stents on benign biliary stricture resolution: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2016;315(12):1250–7 This study is a well-designed multicenter randomized controlled study demonstrating a higher stricture resolution rate of BBS with SEMS compared with plastic stents.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 21.Landi F, de'Angelis N, Sepulveda A, Martínez-Pérez A, Sobhani I, Laurent A, et al. Endoscopic treatment of anastomotic biliary stricture after adult deceased donor liver transplantation with multiple plastic stents versus self-expandable metal stents: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Transpl Int. 2018;31(2):131–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 35.Kitano M, Yamashita Y, Tanaka K, Konishi H, Yazumi S, Nakai Y, et al. Covered self-expandable metal stents with an anti-migration system improve patency duration without increased complications compared with uncovered stents for distal biliary obstruction caused by pancreatic carcinoma: a randomized multicenter trial. Am J Gastroenterol. 2013;108(11):1713–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 37•.. Weigt J, Kandulski A, Malfertheiner P. Anatomy-shaped design of a fully-covered, biliary, self-expandable metal stent for treatment of benign distal biliary strictures. Endosc Int Open. 2016;4(1):E79–82 New SEMS designs decrease stent migration rates and have high stricture resolution rates.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 39.Aepli P, St. John A, Gupta S, Hourigan LF, Vaughan R, Efthymiou M, et al. Success and complications of an intra-ductal fully covered self-expanding metal stent (ID-FCSEMS) to treat anastomotic biliary strictures (AS) after orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT). Surg Endosc. 2017;31(4):1558–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 45.Santosh Kumar KY, Mathew JS, Balakrishnan D, Bharathan VK, Thankamony Amma BSP, Gopalakrishnan U, et al. Intraductal transanastomotic stenting in duct-to-duct biliary reconstruction after living-donor liver transplantation: a randomized trial. J Am Coll Surg. 2017;225(6):747–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar