Table of Contents Author Guidelines Submit a Manuscript
BioMed Research International
Volume 2016 (2016), Article ID 6408067, 8 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2016/6408067
Review Article

Covered Stents versus Uncovered Stents for Unresectable Malignant Biliary Strictures: A Meta-Analysis

1Department of General Surgery, Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, College of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, Zhejiang 310016, China
2Zhejiang University, Zhejiang 310020, China

Received 15 December 2015; Revised 29 January 2016; Accepted 17 February 2016

Academic Editor: Michel Kahaleh

Copyright © 2016 Ming-Yu Chen et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Aim. To summarize the covered or uncovered SEMS for treatment of unresectable malignant distal biliary obstruction, comparing the stent patency, patient survival, and incidence of adverse events between the two SEMSs. Methods. The meta-analysis search was performed independently by two of the authors, using MEDLINE, EMBASE, OVID, and Cochrane databases on all studies between 2010 and 2015. Pooled effect was calculated using either the fixed or the random effects model. Results. Statistics shows that there is no difference between SEMSs in the hazard ratio for patient survival (HR 1.04; 95% CI, 0.92–1.17; ) and stent patency (HR 0.87, 95% CI: 0.58 to 1.30, ). However, incidence of adverse events (OR: 0.74, 95% CI: 0.57 to 0.97, ) showed significant different results in the covered SEMS, with dysfunctions events (OR: 0.75, 95% CI: 0.56 to 1.00, ) playing a more important role than complications (OR: 0.87, 95% CI: 0.58 to 1.30, ). Conclusions. Covered SEMS group had lower incidence of adverse events. There is no significant difference in dysfunctions, but covered SEMS trends to be better, with no difference in stent patency, patient survival, and complications.