Covered versus uncovered self-expandable metallic stents for palliation of malignant gastric outlet obstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BMC Gastroenterol. 2014 Sep 30;14:170. doi: 10.1186/1471-230X-14-170.

Abstract

Background: Self-expandable metallic stents (SEMSs) are widely used for palliation of malignant gastric outlet obstruction (GOO). There are two types of SEMS, covered and uncovered, each with its own advantages and disadvantages. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety between uncovered and covered SEMSs in the palliation of malignant gastric outlet obstruction.

Methods: Databases including PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, the Science Citation Index and momentous meeting abstracts were searched and evaluated by two reviewers independently.

Results: Nine trials involving 849 patients were analyzed. Meta-analysis showed there was no significant difference in technical success rate (RR 1.0, 95% CI [0.98, 1.01]), clinical success rate (RR 1.04, 95% CI [0.98, 1.11]), post-stenting dysphagia score (WMD -0.01, 95% CI [-0.52, 0.50]), stent patency (WMD -0.31, 95% CI [-1.73, 1.11]), overall complications (RR 1.07, 95% CI [0.87, 1.32]) and reintervention rate (RR 1.30, 95% CI [0.92, 1.83]) between covered and uncovered SEMSs group. However, covered SEMSs were associated with higher migration rate (RR 3.48, 95% CI [2.16, 5.62], P < 0.00001) and lower obstruction rate (RR 0.42, 95% CI [0.24, 0.73], P = 0.002).

Conclusions: In the palliative treatment of malignant gastric outlet obstruction, both covered and uncovered SEMSs are safely and effective. Covered stents can reduce the risk of restenosis, whereas uncovered stents are effective in decreasing stent migration.

Publication types

  • Meta-Analysis
  • Review
  • Systematic Review

MeSH terms

  • Equipment Design
  • Foreign-Body Migration
  • Gastric Outlet Obstruction / etiology
  • Gastric Outlet Obstruction / surgery*
  • Humans
  • Palliative Care / methods*
  • Recurrence
  • Reoperation
  • Stents* / adverse effects