Abstract
Background: Currently, side-by-side (SBS) and stent-in-stent (SIS) are the two main techniques for stent deployment to treat hilar biliary obstructions. Previous studies comparing these two techniques are very limited, and thus, no consensus has been reached on which technique is better. The purpose of this study is to compare the clinical efficacy and safety of SBS and SIS deployment via a percutaneous approach for malignant hilar biliary obstruction.Methods: From July 2012 to April 2019, 65 patients with malignant hilar biliary obstruction who underwent bilateral stenting using either the SBS or SIS techniques were included in this study. Among them, 27 patients underwent SIS stent insertion (SIS group), and the remaining 38 patients underwent SBS stent insertion (SBS group). Technical success, improvement of jaundice, complications, duration of stent patency, and overall survival were evaluated.Results: Technical success was achieved in all patients in the two groups. The serum bilirubin level decreased more rapidly 1 week after the procedures in the SBS group than in the SIS group (P=0.02). Although the total complication rate did not differ between the two groups, cholangitis was found to be more frequent in the SIS group (P=0.04). The median stent patency was significantly longer in the SBS group (149 days) than in the SIS group (75 days; P=0.02). The median overall survival did not significantly differ between the two groups (SBS vs. SIS, 155 days vs. 143 days; P>0.05).Conclusions: Percutaneous transhepatic bilateral stenting using either the SBS or SIS technique is safe and effective in the management of malignant hilar biliary obstruction. However, SBS offers a quicker improvement of jaundice, a lower incidence of cholangitis after the procedure, and a longer stent patency period than SIS.
Otaru consensus on biliary stenting for unresectable malignant hilar biliary obstruction
