We have located links that may give you full text access.
COMPARATIVE STUDY
JOURNAL ARTICLE
RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL
RESEARCH SUPPORT, NON-U.S. GOV'T
Covered versus uncovered self-expandable metallic stents for palliation of malignant pyloric obstruction in gastric cancer patients: a randomized, prospective study.
Gastrointestinal Endoscopy 2010 July
BACKGROUND: Self-expandable metallic stents (SEMSs) provide effective palliation of malignant pyloric obstruction in patients with inoperable gastric cancer.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness and side effects of covered and uncovered SEMSs for the palliation of malignant pyloric obstruction.
DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, single-center study.
SETTING: Tertiary-care cancer center hospital.
PATIENTS: This study involved 80 patients with pyloric obstruction related to inoperable gastric cancer.
INTERVENTION: Covered or uncovered SEMS placement.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Technical and clinical success rates as well as the patency rate at 8 weeks after placement.
RESULTS: Both groups had a technical success rate of 100% with no immediate complications. Both groups also had comparable clinical success rates (covered SEMS, 95% [38 of 40] and uncovered SEMS, 90% [36 of 40], P = .68) and 8-week patency rates (covered SEMS, 61.3% [19 of 31] and uncovered SEMS, 61.1% [22 of 36], P > .99). Stent migration within 8 weeks was more common in the covered SEMS group (25.8% [8 of 31]) than in the uncovered SEMS group (2.8% [1 of 36], P = .009), whereas re-stenosis because of tumor ingrowth was more common in the uncovered SEMS group (25.0% [9 of 36] vs 0% [0 of 31] in the covered SEMS group, P = .003). Overall patient survival and stent patency did not differ between groups (P = .27 and 0.61 by log-rank test, respectively).
LIMITATIONS: The study population was limited to gastric cancer patients, and stent designs were changed in the midst of the study period.
CONCLUSION: Both the covered and uncovered SEMSs are effective and have comparable 8-week patency in patients with malignant pyloric obstruction, despite different patterns of late stent failure.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness and side effects of covered and uncovered SEMSs for the palliation of malignant pyloric obstruction.
DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, single-center study.
SETTING: Tertiary-care cancer center hospital.
PATIENTS: This study involved 80 patients with pyloric obstruction related to inoperable gastric cancer.
INTERVENTION: Covered or uncovered SEMS placement.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Technical and clinical success rates as well as the patency rate at 8 weeks after placement.
RESULTS: Both groups had a technical success rate of 100% with no immediate complications. Both groups also had comparable clinical success rates (covered SEMS, 95% [38 of 40] and uncovered SEMS, 90% [36 of 40], P = .68) and 8-week patency rates (covered SEMS, 61.3% [19 of 31] and uncovered SEMS, 61.1% [22 of 36], P > .99). Stent migration within 8 weeks was more common in the covered SEMS group (25.8% [8 of 31]) than in the uncovered SEMS group (2.8% [1 of 36], P = .009), whereas re-stenosis because of tumor ingrowth was more common in the uncovered SEMS group (25.0% [9 of 36] vs 0% [0 of 31] in the covered SEMS group, P = .003). Overall patient survival and stent patency did not differ between groups (P = .27 and 0.61 by log-rank test, respectively).
LIMITATIONS: The study population was limited to gastric cancer patients, and stent designs were changed in the midst of the study period.
CONCLUSION: Both the covered and uncovered SEMSs are effective and have comparable 8-week patency in patients with malignant pyloric obstruction, despite different patterns of late stent failure.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app