Endoscopic stenting

Abstract

Endoscopic management of postcholecystectomy biliary leaks is widely accepted as the treatment of choice. However, refractory biliary leaks after a combination of biliary sphincterotomy and the placement of a large-bore (10F) plastic stent can occur, and the optimal rescue endotherapy for this situation is unclear.To compare the clinical effectiveness of the use of a fully covered self-expandable metal stent (FCSEMS) with the placement of multiple plastic stents (MPS) for the treatment of postcholecystectomy refractory biliary leaks.Prospective study.Two tertiary-care referral academic centers and one general district hospital.Forty consecutive patients with refractory biliary leaks who underwent endoscopic management.Temporary placement of MPS (n = 20) or FCSEMSs (n = 20).Clinical outcomes of endotherapy as well as the technical success, adverse events, need for reinterventions, and prognostic factors for clinical success.Endotherapy was possible in all patients. After endotherapy, closure of the leak was accomplished in 13 patients (65%) who received MPS and in 20 patients (100%) who received FCSEMSs (P = .004). The Kaplan-Meier (log-rank) leak-free survival analysis showed a statistically significant difference between the 2 patient populations (χ2 [1] = 8.30; P < .01) in favor of the FCSEMS group. Use of <3 plastic stents (P = .024), a plastic stent diameter <20F (P = .006), and a high-grade biliary leak (P = .015) were shown to be significant predictors of treatment failure with MPS. The 7 patients in whom placement of MPS failed were retreated with FCSEMSs, resulting in closure of the leaks in all cases.Non-randomized design.In our series, the results of the temporary placement of FCSEMSs for postcholecystectomy refractory biliary leaks were superior to those from the use of MPS. A randomized study is needed to confirm our results before further recommendations.