Endoscopic Bilateral Stent-in-Stent Versus Stent-by-Stent Deployment in Advanced Malignant Hilar Obstruction: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review

Abstract

Background and Aim There is no clear data to compare the effectiveness and safety of bilateral stent-in-stent (SIS) or stent-by-stent (SBS) deployment for advanced malignant hilar obstruction (MHO). This meta-analysis was done to investigate clinical outcomes of these deployment methods.

Methods We did a literature search to identify studies that reported the clinical outcomes of bilateral metal stents in patients with advanced MHO. Weighed pooled rates (WPR) along with 95% confidence interval (95% CI) were calculated in order to compare outcomes including technical and clinical success, adverse events, and stent occlusion between the two groups. We conducted a meta-analysis using a random-effects model.

Results Five comparative studies with 250 patients, and 20 single-arm studies for the SIS or SBS method were eligible for the meta-analysis and systematic review. The bilateral SIS deployment had a significantly higher technical success rate than did SBS deployment (OR 6.43; 95% CI 1.08–38.09). There was no difference in the clinical success (OR 1.23; 95% CI 0.45–3.38), overall adverse events rates (OR 0.42; 95% CI 0.15–1.18), or overall occlusion rate (OR 1.55; 95% CI 0.89–2.70). As a single-armed group, WPR of technical success of the SIS and SBS groups was 96.4% and 89.6%, respectively. Clinical success was 97.5% and 98.3%. Overall, adverse events were 35.9% and 22.6%. Occlusion rates were 27.7% and 37.7%.

Conclusions Although there was a lack of quality data and heterogeneity, bilateral SIS deployment had a higher technical feasibility than did the SBS method in patients with advanced MHO, without differences in terms of clinical success, adverse events, or occlusion rates.