Back

The addition of transmural side holes to covered metal stents does not reduce the rate of premature bile duct stent occlusion or acute cholecystitis

Stendahl, A.; Yu, J. X.; Jazrawi, S.; Jonica, E.; Rodriguez, J.; Javia, S.; Sharzehi, K.; Cote, G.

2026-05-18 gastroenterology
10.64898/2026.05.14.26353216 medRxiv
Show abstract

Background and Study Aims Fully covered, self expandable metal stents (FCSEMS) are used to treat biliary strictures. FCSEMS with transmural side holes may facilitate cystic duct drainage to mitigate risk of cholecystitis and impact other stent-related adverse events such as migration and occlusion. This study compared rates of premature stent occlusion and acute cholecystitis among patients with biliary strictures who underwent first time placement of a FCSEMS with or without transmural side holes. Patients and Methods This was a retrospective cohort study of adults who underwent endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) with FCSEMS between April 2022 to April 2025 for malignant or benign extrahepatic bile duct strictures. Patients were followed for a minimum of 9 months or through planned stent removal. The primary outcome was premature bile duct occlusion. The secondary outcome was acute cholecystitis among patients with an intact gallbladder. Results Among 219 patients meeting enrollment criteria, 57 (26%) had side holes. The rate of premature stent occlusion was similar with transmural side holes (12%) vs. without (11%, HR 1.02, 95% CI 0.42 2.43, p = 0.96). Among patients with an intact gallbladder (n=129), acute cholecystitis rates were similar with side holes (6%) or without (4.8%, HR 1.01, 95% CI 0.22 4.5, p = 0.99). Conclusions FCSEMS stents with side holes do not reduce rates of premature bile duct stent occlusion or acute cholecystitis compared to FCSEMS without side holes.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
American Journal of Gastroenterology
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
19.0%
2
Gastroenterology
40 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
12.5%
3
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 18%
10.3%
4
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 17%
6.4%
5
Journal of Clinical Medicine
91 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.6%
50% of probability mass above
6
British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology
21 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.6%
7
Cureus
67 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.6%
8
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 35%
2.1%
9
Frontiers in Physiology
93 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.9%
10
Gut
36 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.9%
11
Frontiers in Medicine
113 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.7%
12
PLOS Medicine
98 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.7%
13
American Journal of Physiology-Gastrointestinal and Liver Physiology
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.7%
14
Hepatology Communications
21 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.7%
15
Clinical and Translational Science
21 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.7%
16
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 10%
1.5%
17
PeerJ
261 papers in training set
Top 9%
1.4%
18
F1000Research
79 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.1%
19
BMC Medicine
163 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.1%
20
Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics
25 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.1%
21
The Lancet Global Health
24 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.0%
22
Inflammatory Bowel Diseases
15 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.0%
23
Cellular and Molecular Gastroenterology and Hepatology
41 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.0%
24
Hepatology
18 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.9%
25
American Journal of Preventive Medicine
11 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.9%
26
Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine
27 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.8%
27
BMC Cancer
52 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
28
Frontiers in Pharmacology
100 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.7%
29
British Journal of Cancer
42 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
30
The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism
35 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.7%