Background:
Endoscopic stents are the first-line treatment in the management of benign biliary stricture (BBS) which include multiple plastic stents (MPSs), fully covered self-expandable metal stents (FCSEMS) including the conventional and modified ones (FCSEMS-C and FCSEMS-M) and biodegradable stents. However, different stents have their distinct advantages and disadvantages. We aim to conduct this systematic review to compare the efficacy of different stents in the management of BBS.

Methods:
Several databases were searched from inception through March 2018. Studies including >10 patients with postoperative stricture treated with endoscopic stents were enrolled. Pooled odds ratio of outcomes were calculated to compare MPS with FCSEMS. Weighted pooled rates were calculated to show the efficacy of FCSEMS-M, FCSEMS-C, and MPS.

Results:
Twenty-two articles were reviewed including 4 randomized controlled studies, 4 cohort studies, and 14 case series studies. Comparing FCSEMS with MPS, the pooled odds ratio was 0.48 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.22-1.05] (P=0.07) for stricture resolution, 0.3 (95% CI: 0.1-0.92) (P=0.03) for adverse event, 1.9 (95% CI: 0.3-12) (P=0.49) for stent migration, and 1.38 (95% CI: 0.36-5.3) (P=0.34) for stricture recurrence. The pooled rates for stricture recurrence of MPS, FCSEMSC, and FCSEMS-M were 19%, 19%, and 7%, respectively. The pooled rates for stent migration were 4% of MPS, 25% of FCSEMS-C, and 3% of FCSEMS-M.

Conclusions:
FCSEMS-M is more favorable in the management of BBS comparing with MPS or FCSEMS-C. The biodegradable stent may be a promising option but currently available data is insufficient to draw a firm conclusion.

Additional Metadata
Persistent URL dx.doi.org/10.1097/mcg.0000000000001193, hdl.handle.net/1765/117748
Journal Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology
Citation
Yang, Q., Liu, JY, Ma, W.J., Wang, J.K., Li, F.Y., Bramer, W.M, … Pan, Q. (2019). Efficacy of Different Endoscopic Stents in the Management of Postoperative Biliary Strictures A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology, 53(6), 418–426. doi:10.1097/mcg.0000000000001193