Skip Navigation
Skip to contents

Clin Endosc : Clinical Endoscopy

Search
Advanced Search
OPEN ACCESS
mobile search button mobile menu button

Articles

Page Path
HOME > Clin Endosc > Volume 58(6); 2025 > Article
Review Self-expandable metal vs. plastic stents for preoperative biliary drainage in patients receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy
Takashi Tamuraorcid, Reiko Ashidaorcid, Yuki Kawajiorcid, Masahiro Itonagaorcid, Yasunobu Yamashitaorcid, Masayuki Kitanoorcid
Clinical Endoscopy 2025;58(6):817-825.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5946/ce.2025.045
Published online: July 29, 2025

Second Department of Internal Medicine, Wakayama Medical University, Wakayama, Japan

Correspondence: Takashi Tamura Second Department of Internal Medicine, Wakayama Medical University, 811-1, Kimiidera, Wakayama city, Wakayama 641-8509, Japan E-mail: ttakashi@wakayama-med.ac.jp
• Received: February 12, 2025   • Revised: May 1, 2025   • Accepted: May 2, 2025

© 2025 Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

  • 3,147 Views
  • 213 Download
prev next
Full Article

Download PDF Download PDF

  • Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) improves the rate of curative resection and overall prognosis in patients with resectable or borderline resectable pancreatic cancer. The treatment period from the initiation of NAC to surgery typically ranges from 2 to 6 months. In cases of malignant biliary obstruction caused by pancreatic cancer, maintaining preoperative biliary drainage (PBD) until surgery is essential to continue NAC. Minimizing adverse events related to endoscopic biliary drainage and avoiding perioperative adverse events are crucial. Plastic stents (PSs) are commonly used for PBD; however, the extended duration of PBD required for NAC increases the risk of recurrent biliary obstruction (RBO), potentially leading to discontinuation of NAC. Therefore, preventing RBO during PBD in patients with pancreatic cancer receiving NAC is important. The placement of self-expandable metal stents (SEMSs) for PBD significantly reduces the rate of RBO compared with PS placement. Although SEMS placement may increase the risk of pancreatitis or cholecystitis, its effect on postoperative outcomes is comparable to that of PS placement. Given their lower rate of RBO, SEMSs are considered more suitable than PSs for PBD in patients with pancreatic cancer receiving NAC.
  • Keywords: Carcinoma, pancreatic ductal; Neoadjuvant therapy; Preoperative biliary drainage; Stents; Stents, metal
Pancreatic cancer has a poor prognosis, with a 5-year survival rate of only 6%.1,2 Pancreatectomy is the only curative treatment for pancreatic cancer. However, many patients have unresectable pancreatic cancer at the time of diagnosis. Only 15% to 20% of patients are candidates for surgical resection.3 Regarding the location, 78% of pancreatic cancers occur in the pancreatic head, and 22% occur in the pancreatic body and tail.4 Cancer of the pancreatic head causes obstructive jaundice and hepatic dysfunction owing to biliary obstruction.5 Jaundice and liver dysfunction can prevent surgery and often necessitate biliary drainage before pancreatic resection.6 Biliary drainage can be achieved using three main approaches: endoscopic retrograde biliary drainage (ERBD), endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage, and percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage. ERBD is the most common approach for preoperative biliary drainage (PBD). ERBD was first introduced in the 1970s with the advent of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), which served as a diagnostic procedure and a therapeutic technique for stent placement in patients with pancreaticobiliary disease.7 The use of plastic stents (PSs) in ERBD was first reported in the 1980s.8 In 1989, self-expandable metal stents (SEMSs) were first used in ERBD for malignant biliary obstruction (MBO) and were subsequently utilized primarily for MBO.9 Previously, SEMSs were used in ERBD only for unresectable MBO, whereas PSs were used in ERBD for benign biliary obstruction or preoperative MBO. Recently, neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) was reported to lead to better postoperative outcomes in patients with resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer.10,11 Therefore, biliary stents capable of sustaining long-term PBD are becoming increasingly desirable. The usefulness of SEMS placement for PBD in patients with pancreatic cancer has been reported, leading to an increased use of SEMSs in ERBD.6 However, there are concerns regarding the increased adverse events associated with the placement of metal stents for PBD and their potential impact on pancreatectomy. This review summarizes the current knowledge on the advantages and disadvantages of SEMSs and PSs for PBD in patients with pancreatic cancer receiving NAC.
PSs with lumen sizes ranging from 7 Fr (2.3 mm) to 10 Fr (3.3 mm) are commonly used for ERBD in patients with distal MBO. By contrast, SEMSs with a lumen size of 10 mm are often used for ERBD in patients with distal MBO. The lumen size of PSs is smaller than that of SEMSs. A meta-analysis reported that the time to recurrent biliary obstruction (TRBO) was 4.45 months longer with SEMSs than with PSs in patients with unresectable distal MBO.12 The median TRBO of PS ranges from 2.0 months to 7.6 months. In contrast, the median TRBO of SEMS ranges from 3.8 months to 8.9 months.12 However, SEMSs are more expensive per unit than PSs. In terms of stent replacement, PSs are easier to replace, whereas uncovered SEMSs (UCSEMSs) cannot be removed, and covered SEMSs (CSEMSs) cannot be removed once a long period has elapsed after their placement.
No studies have demonstrated a clear benefit of PBD.6 Several retrospective analyses have demonstrated that the overall morbidity does not differ between patients who undergo PBD and those who do not.13-17 Some studies have demonstrated that PBD is associated with prolonged operative duration, greater intraoperative blood loss, and a higher rate of postoperative infections.18-21 In addition, the DROP trial, a multicenter randomized controlled study, evaluated 202 patients with resectable pancreatic head cancer by assigning them to early surgery within 1 week without PBD or ERCP with PBD using a 7-Fr PS, followed by delayed surgery 4 to 6 weeks later. Over 120 days, the cumulative rate of serious adverse events was significantly higher in the PBD group than in the early surgery group (74% vs. 39%, p<0.001), with a relative risk of adverse events in the early surgery group of 0.54 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.41–0.71). The higher adverse event rate in the PBD group was largely attributed to PBD-related issues, including cholangitis (26%) and stent occlusion (15%), rather than postoperative adverse events related to jaundice. Mortality rate and duration of hospital stay did not differ significantly between the two groups.17
However, early surgery for pancreatic cancer is rare. The use of NAC before surgery for pancreatic cancer has become increasingly common in recent years. Many studies have demonstrated the efficacy of NAC in the treatment of borderline resectable pancreatic cancer.11 NAC is recommended for patients with borderline resectable pancreatic cancer according to the 2021 National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines.10,22 Additionally, the application of NAC has been expanded to include patients with resectable pancreatic cancer because it may increase the likelihood of achieving negative surgical margins, target micrometastatic disease, and identify patients who are unlikely to benefit from surgery because of rapid disease progression or previously undetected metastases.11,23 A meta-analysis demonstrated that NAC improved overall survival compared with upfront surgery, with a hazard ratio of 0.66 (95% CI, 0.52–0.85; p=0.001; I2=46%), representing an increase in median overall survival from 19 to 29 months.11 NAC is typically administered over 2 to 6 months prior to surgery.11,24 Moreover, certain types of chemotherapy may require the normalization of liver function before initiation.23,25 Therefore, PBD is required to deliver NAC in patients with MBO-induced liver dysfunction.
The prevention of RBO and preoperative cholangitis during PBD is important. If preoperative cholangitis or RBO occurs during NAC, NAC should be discontinued. Furthermore, preoperative cholangitis during PBD increases the incidence of postoperative adverse events such as delayed gastric emptying and is an independent risk factor for severe adverse events following pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD).26
A retrospective analysis of 272 patients with pancreatic cancer undergoing PD compared the perioperative outcomes and adverse events between SEMSs and PSs. A total of 29, 141, and 92 patients had SEMSs, PSs, and no biliary decompression, respectively. Patients with SEMSs had similar perioperative outcomes but a significantly longer time to RBO than patients with PSs (median, 125 vs. 43 days; p<0.001). The patients with PSs experienced more stent-related adverse events and exchanges.27 Therefore, SEMSs have been used for PBD during NAC to reduce the incidence of RBO. Several studies have reported that SEMS placement for PBD in patients with pancreatic cancer receiving NAC is associated with a lower incidence of preoperative RBO than PS placement (Table 1).25,28-32
A recent randomized controlled trial involving 22 patients with borderline resectable pancreatic cancer receiving NAC compared the outcomes of ERCP with biliary drainage using a fully covered SEMS (FCSEMS) (Fig. 1) and a 10-Fr PS (Fig. 2). RBO occurred significantly less frequently in the FCSEMS group than in the PS group (18.2% vs. 72.8%, p=0.015). The FCSEMS group also required fewer stent re-intervention procedures (0.27±0.65 vs. 1.27±1.1, p=0.001).25 A cohort of 575 patients who underwent preoperative PBD before PD was analyzed using data from the Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Audit (2017–2018), with 42.8% receiving SEMSs. The use of SEMSs was associated with a lower rate of PBD-related cholangitis, reduced incidence of postoperative pancreatic fistulas, and shorter postoperative hospital stay.33,34
In addition, a meta-analysis showed that the placement of SEMSs for PBD was associated with a lower incidence of RBO than PS placement. In a comparison of stent patency rates at 1, 2, and 3 months post-insertion based on stent type, patients with PSs demonstrated lower patency rates than those with SEMSs (1 month, SEMS [94.0%] vs. PS [75.6%]; p=0.006; 2 months: SEMS [91.1%] vs. PS [48.1%], p<0.001; and 3 months: SEMS [87.0%] vs. PS [26.8%], p<0.001).35 For patients with pancreatic cancer receiving NAC, the duration of PBD often exceeds 2 months, and SEMSs are the preferred choice for PBD. Therefore, SEMSs are considered superior to PSs for PBD in patients with pancreatic cancer receiving NAC because they reduce the risk of RBO.
In PBD for patients with pancreatic cancer receiving NAC, PSs are associated with a higher frequency of RBO than SEMSs, leading to an increased incidence of preoperative cholangitis25 (Fig. 3A, Table 1). SEMS placement is a significant risk factor for post-ERCP pancreatitis and cholecystitis in patients with biliary obstruction caused by unresectable MBO (Fig. 3B, C).36,37 These studies indicate that the rate of post-ERCP pancreatitis was more than five times higher in patients who received SEMSs.37 Furthermore, the incidence of cholecystitis following stent placement was more than three times higher in patients who received SEMSs than in those who received PSs.36 In addition, a meta-analysis reported that post-ERCP pancreatitis occurred more frequently with SEMS than with PS placement for preoperative drainage in patients with pancreatic cancer.35 The incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis was 10.7% upon placement of SEMSs compared with 4.7% upon placement of PSs (odds ratio [OR], 3.01; 95% CI, 1.48–6.11; p=0.002). Additionally, the incidence of cholecystitis following ERCP was 4.1% and 1.5% in the SEMS and PS groups, respectively (OR, 1.56; 95% CI, 0.53–4.62; p=0.42).
In PBD for patients with pancreatic cancer receiving NAC, the incidence of postoperative adverse events was nearly equivalent between MS and PS (Table 1). A meta-analysis evaluated the safety of stents for preoperative drainage in patients with pancreatic cancer by comparing patients with PS placement and those with SEMS placement in terms of blood loss, operative time, postoperative adverse events, and surgical mortality.34,35 Blood loss did not significantly differ between the SEMS and PS groups (mean difference [MD], 43.0 mL; 95% CI, –202.1 to 288.2 mL; p=0.73). Similarly, operative time did not significantly differ between the SEMS and PS groups (MD, 18.0 minutes; 95% CI, –29.4 to 65.5 minutes; p=0.46). An analysis of 11 studies involving 571 patients found no significant difference in the incidence of postoperative adverse events between the SEMS and PS groups (OR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.53–1.15; p=0.21). An analysis of six studies involving 315 patients found no significant difference in surgical mortality between the SEMS and PS groups (OR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.10–3.60; p=0.57).35 These meta-analyses did not reveal a significant difference in surgical safety between SEMSs and PSs for PBD. However, this was not limited to patients with pancreatic cancer who underwent NAC. Furthermore, most studies focusing on patients with pancreatic cancer who received NAC had small sample sizes, indicating that larger studies are required to evaluate the safety of surgery.
The lower cost of PSs compared with SEMSs is considered an advantage of PSs. However, in patients undergoing NAC, a prospective randomized controlled trial reported no significant difference in the total medical costs associated with biliary drainage between the stent types. Furthermore, no cost differences were observed when the entire perioperative period from surgery to hospital discharge was included.
SEM placement for PBD in patients with pancreatic cancer is expected to reduce the incidence of time to RBO compared with PS placement. However, it is associated with an increased incidence of adverse events such as pancreatitis and cholecystitis following stent placement. Understanding the risk factors for post-ERCP pancreatitis and cholecystitis after SEMS placement is essential. A large multicenter study demonstrated that a pancreatic duct without tumor involvement (OR, 2.07; 95% CI, 1.30–3.31; p=0.023), an intact papilla (OR, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.06–2.44; p=0.025), and SEMS placement across the papilla (OR, 8.63; 95% CI, 1.14–65.07; p=0.037) were independent risk factors for acute pancreatitis, while tumor involvement at the orifice of the cystic duct (OR, 3.17; 95% CI, 1.80–5.54; p<0.001) was an independent risk factor for cholecystitis.38 In other studies, factors such as a narrow common bile duct diameter, the presence of gallbladder stones, and tumor invasion into the feeding artery of the gallbladder were reported as independent risk factors for cholecystitis after SEMS placement.39,40 In addition, Nakai et al.41 reported that axial force and SEMS length were associated with the incidence of cholecystitis, with high axial force and SEMS length ≤60 mm identified as independent risk factors for cholecystitis.
Additionally, there are methods to reduce the incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis and acute cholecystitis after placement of SEMSs.42,43 It has been reported that placement of a pancreatic duct stent during deployment of a CSEMS for MBO significantly reduces the incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis.43 Placement of a pancreatic duct stent is an effective method to prevent post-ERCP pancreatitis during CSEMS placement. However, in patients with pancreatic duct obstruction, such as those with pancreatic cancer, placement of a pancreatic duct stent can sometimes be difficult. Similarly, the effectiveness of stent placement in the cystic duct for preventing cholecystitis associated with CSEMS placement has been reported.42 The technical success rate of stent placement in the cystic duct in patients with distal MBO is 75%.42 Therefore, similar to pancreatic duct stent placement, cystic duct stenting is an effective method for preventing cholecystitis but can be technically difficult. For PBD, it has been reported the use of a CSEMS with a diameter of 6 mm, instead of the more commonly used 10-mm SEMS for MBO drainage, can reduce the incidence of pancreatitis and cholecystitis associated with SEMS placement.38,44,45 However, the incidence of RBO using CSEMSs with a 6-mm diameter for PBD in patients with pancreatic cancer receiving NAC tended to be higher (33.3%–45.3%) than the reported incidence of RBO using SEMSs with a 10-mm diameter.35,44,45
SEMSs have two main types. One is a CSEMS, which is covered with polyurethane, and the other is UCSEMS, which lacks this covering.38 Kitano et al.46 showed that the time to RBO was longer with CSEMS placement than with UCSEMS placement for ERBD in patients with distal MBO caused by pancreatic cancer. In addition, a meta-analysis showed that CSEMS is superior to UCSEMS in preventing RBO.47 In contrast, Seo et al.48 reported that in patients with distal MBO caused by pancreatic cancer who received NAC, the rate of RBO during PBD did not differ between CSEMSs and UCSEMSs. RBO was caused by tumor ingrowth in 16.7% of patients with UCSEMSs and by stent migration in 6.8% of patients with FCSEMSs.48 CSEMSs offer an advantage over UCSEMSs in terms of removability. One study indicated that CSEMSs are superior to UCSEMSs for PBD in patients with pancreatic cancer receiving NAC.29 Few studies have compared CSEMSs and UCSEMSs for PBD in patients with pancreatic cancer who underwent NAC. Therefore, whether CSEMSs or UCSEMSs are more suitable for preoperative drainage in this patient population remains controversial.
During PBD in patients with pancreatic cancer receiving NAC, maintaining drainage without the occurrence of RBO or cholangitis is crucial. The use of SEMSs for PBD significantly reduces the incidence of RBO and cholangitis compared with the use of PSs. A few reports have indicated that the rate of postoperative adverse events is higher in patients who underwent SEMS placement for PBD. Therefore, SEMS placement is more suitable for PBD in patients with pancreatic cancer receiving NAC. However, adverse events other than ERBD-related cholangitis, such as post-ERCP pancreatitis and cholecystitis, appear to occur more frequently with SEMS than with PS placement. Recognizing these risks and taking measures to prevent adverse events when using SEMSs for PBD are essential.
Fig. 1.
Placement of a fully covered self-expandable metal stent (FCSEMS) for biliary obstruction caused by pancreatic cancer. (A) Image of placement of an FCSEMS across a stricture in the bile duct caused by pancreatic cancer. (B) Endoscopic image of the FCSEMS in the papilla after stent placement across the stricture in the bile duct. (C) A computed tomography (CT) scan image showing a mass in the head of the pancreas causing bile duct obstruction before neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC). (D) A CT scan image showing that the tumor decreased in size following NAC after FCSEMS placement.
ce-2025-045f1.jpg
Fig. 2.
Placement of a plastic stent (PS) for biliary obstruction caused by pancreatic cancer. (A) Image of placement of a PS across a stricture in the bile duct caused by pancreatic cancer. (B) Endoscopic image of the PS in the papilla after stent placement across the stricture in the bile duct. (C) A computed tomography (CT) scan image showing a mass in the head of the pancreas causing bile duct obstruction before neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC). (D) A CT scan image showing that the tumor decreased in size following NAC after PS placement.
ce-2025-045f2.jpg
Fig. 3.
Adverse event of stent placement for preoperative biliary drainage. (A) Endoscopic image of cholangitis caused by occlusion of a plastic stent. (B) A computed tomography (CT) scan image showing acute pancreatitis caused by placement of a self-expandable metal stent (SEMS). Peripancreatic effusion associated with post-ERCP pancreatitis (arrowheads). (C) A CT scan image showing acute cholecystitis caused by SEMS placement. Gallbladder wall thickening with pericholecystic inflammatory spread (arrowheads).
ce-2025-045f3.jpg
Table 1.
Summary of studies comparing SEMSs and PSs for preoperative biliary drainage in pancreatic cancer patients receiving NAC
Study Published year Study design Type of SEMS (n) Type of PS (n) RBO (SEMS) RBO (PS, %) TRBO (SEMS) TRBO (PS) Adverse events (SEMS) Adverse events (PS) Rate of postoperative adverse event (SEMS, %) Rate of postoperative adverse event (PS, %)
Tsuboi et al.28 2016 Retrospective FCSEMS (11) 7 Fr (9) 0% 72.7 60 Days 0% RBO, 90 days 0% RBO 60 Days 45%, RBO, 90 days 90% RBO None Cholangitis 72.7% 29 18
Gardner et al.29 2016 RCT FCSEMS (16) 10 Fr (21) FCSEMS 25%, UCSEMS 35% 52 FCSEMS median 219 days, UCSEMS median 88 days Median 75 days PEP FCSEMS 19%, PEP UCSEMS 18% None - -
UCSEMS (17)
Nakamura et al.30 2019 Retrospective UCSEMS (17) 7-8.5 Fr (26) 17.6% 34.6 - - - - 47 50
Kuwatani et al.31 2020 Retrospective SEMS (17) PS (12) 6% 83 Not-reached Median 63.5 days Abdominal pain 6% None 47.1 50
Tamura et al.25 2021 RCT FCSEMS (11) 10 Fr (11) 18.2% 72.8 Not-reached Median 44 days Cholangitis 9.1%, cholecystitis 18.2% Cholangitis 63.6%, cholecystitis 9.1% 28.5 33.3
Hasegawa et al.32 2021 Retrospective CSEMS (27) 7-8.5 Fr (40) 4% 39 Not-reached Median 40 days PEP 3.7%, cholecystitis 3.7% PEP 10%, cholecystitis 5.0% 19 20.0

SEMS, self-expandable metal stent; PS, plastic stent; NAC, neoadjuvant chemotherapy; RBO, recurrent biliary obstruction; TRBO, time to RBO; CSEMS, covered SEMS; FCSEMS, fully covered SEMS; UCSEMS, uncovered SEMS; PEP, post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis; RCT, randomized controlled trial; -, no information or applicable data is provided for that item.

  • 1. Quaresma M, Coleman MP, Rachet B. 40-year trends in an index of survival for all cancers combined and survival adjusted for age and sex for each cancer in England and Wales, 1971-2011: a population-based study. Lancet 2015;385:1206–1218.ArticlePubMed
  • 2. Garrido-Laguna I, Hidalgo M. Pancreatic cancer: from state-of-the-art treatments to promising novel therapies. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 2015;12:319–334.ArticlePubMedPDF
  • 3. Siegel RL, Giaquinto AN, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2024. CA Cancer J Clin 2024;74:12–49.ArticlePubMed
  • 4. Sener SF, Fremgen A, Menck HR, et al. Pancreatic cancer: a report of treatment and survival trends for 100,313 patients diagnosed from 1985-1995, using the National Cancer Database. J Am Coll Surg 1999;189:1–7.ArticlePubMed
  • 5. Sharma C, Eltawil KM, Renfrew PD, et al. Advances in diagnosis, treatment and palliation of pancreatic carcinoma: 1990-2010. World J Gastroenterol 2011;17:867–897.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 6. Nehme F, Lee JH. Preoperative biliary drainage for pancreatic cancer. Dig Endosc 2022;34:428–438.ArticlePubMedPDF
  • 7. Cotton PB, Beales JS. Clinical relevance of endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography. Gut 1972;13:851.
  • 8. Soehendra N, Reynders-Frederix V. Palliative bile duct drainage: a new endoscopic method of introducing a transpapillary drain. Endoscopy 1980;12:8–11.ArticlePubMed
  • 9. Huibregtse K, Cheng J, Coene PP, et al. Endoscopic placement of expandable metal stents for biliary strictures: a preliminary report on experience with 33 patients. Endoscopy 1989;21:280–282.ArticlePubMed
  • 10. Michelakos T, Pergolini I, Castillo CF, et al. Predictors of resectability and survival in patients with borderline and locally advanced pancreatic cancer who underwent neoadjuvant treatment with FOLFIRINOX. Ann Surg 2019;269:733–740.ArticlePubMed
  • 11. van Dam JL, Janssen QP, Besselink MG, et al. Neoadjuvant therapy or upfront surgery for resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Eur J Cancer 2022;160:140–149.ArticlePubMed
  • 12. Almadi MA, Barkun A, Martel M. Plastic vs. self-expandable metal stents for palliation in malignant biliary obstruction: a series of meta-analyses. Am J Gastroenterol 2017;112:260–273.ArticlePubMedPDF
  • 13. Martignoni ME, Wagner M, Krähenbühl L, et al. Effect of preoperative biliary drainage on surgical outcome after pancreatoduodenectomy. Am J Surg 2001;181:52–59.ArticlePubMed
  • 14. Sewnath ME, Birjmohun RS, Rauws EA, et al. The effect of preoperative biliary drainage on postoperative complications after pancreaticoduodenectomy. J Am Coll Surg 2001;192:726–734.ArticlePubMed
  • 15. Tomazic A, Pleskovic A. Surgical outcome after pancreatoduodenectomy: effect of preoperative biliary drainage. Hepatogastroenterology 2006;53:944–946.PubMed
  • 16. Tsai YF, Shyu JF, Chen TH, et al. Effect of preoperative biliary drainage on surgical outcome after pancreaticoduodenectomy. Hepatogastroenterology 2006;53:823–827.PubMed
  • 17. van der Gaag NA, Rauws EA, van Eijck CH, et al. Preoperative biliary drainage for cancer of the head of the pancreas. N Engl J Med 2010;362:129–137.ArticlePubMed
  • 18. Hodul P, Creech S, Pickleman J, et al. The effect of preoperative biliary stenting on postoperative complications after pancreaticoduodenectomy. Am J Surg 2003;186:420–425.ArticlePubMed
  • 19. Bhati CS, Kubal C, Sihag PK, et al. Effect of preoperative biliary drainage on outcome of classical pancreaticoduodenectomy. World J Gastroenterol 2007;13:1240–1242.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 20. Lermite E, Pessaux P, Teyssedou C, et al. Effect of preoperative endoscopic biliary drainage on infectious morbidity after pancreatoduodenectomy: a case-control study. Am J Surg 2008;195:442–446.ArticlePubMed
  • 21. Mezhir JJ, Brennan MF, Baser RE, et al. A matched case-control study of preoperative biliary drainage in patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma: routine drainage is not justified. J Gastrointest Surg 2009;13:2163–2169.ArticlePubMedPDF
  • 22. Spitz FR, Abbruzzese JL, Lee JE, et al. Preoperative and postoperative chemoradiation strategies in patients treated with pancreaticoduodenectomy for adenocarcinoma of the pancreas. J Clin Oncol 1997;15:928–937.ArticlePubMed
  • 23. Varadhachary GR, Wolff RA, Crane CH, et al. Preoperative gemcitabine and cisplatin followed by gemcitabine-based chemoradiation for resectable adenocarcinoma of the pancreatic head. J Clin Oncol 2008;26:3487–3495.ArticlePubMed
  • 24. Ielpo B, Caruso R, Duran H, et al. A comparative study of neoadjuvant treatment with gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel versus surgery first for pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Surg Oncol 2017;26:402–410.Article
  • 25. Tamura T, Itonaga M, Ashida R, et al. Covered self-expandable metal stents versus plastic stents for preoperative biliary drainage in patient receiving neo-adjuvant chemotherapy for borderline resectable pancreatic cancer: prospective randomized study. Dig Endosc 2021;33:1170–1178.ArticlePubMedPDF
  • 26. Kitahata Y, Kawai M, Tani M, et al. Preoperative cholangitis during biliary drainage increases the incidence of postoperative severe complications after pancreaticoduodenectomy. Am J Surg 2014;208:1–10.ArticlePubMed
  • 27. Mullen JT, Lee JH, Gomez HF, et al. Pancreaticoduodenectomy after placement of endobiliary metal stents. J Gastrointest Surg 2005;9:1094–1105.ArticlePubMed
  • 28. Tsuboi T, Sasaki T, Serikawa M, et al. Preoperative biliary drainage in cases of borderline resectable pancreatic cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy and surgery. Gastroenterol Res Pract 2016;2016:7968201.ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
  • 29. Gardner TB, Spangler CC, Byanova KL, et al. Cost-effectiveness and clinical efficacy of biliary stents in patients undergoing neoadjuvant therapy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma in a randomized controlled trial. Gastrointest Endosc 2016;84:460–466.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 30. Nakamura K, Sho M, Akahori T, et al. A comparison between plastic and metallic biliary stent placement in patients receiving preoperative neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for resectable pancreatic cancer. World J Surg 2019;43:642–648.ArticlePubMedPDF
  • 31. Kuwatani M, Nakamura T, Hayashi T, et al. Clinical outcomes of biliary drainage during a neoadjuvant therapy for pancreatic cancer: metal versus plastic stents. Gut Liver 2020;14:269–273.ArticlePubMed
  • 32. Hasegawa S, Kubota K, Yagi S, et al. Covered metallic stent placement for biliary drainage could be promising in the coming era of neoadjuvant chemo-radiation therapy for all pancreatic cancer. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci 2021;28:617–624.ArticlePubMedPDF
  • 33. Latenstein AE, Mackay TM, van Huijgevoort NC, et al. Nationwide practice and outcomes of endoscopic biliary drainage in resectable pancreatic head and periampullary cancer. HPB (Oxford) 2021;23:270–278.ArticlePubMed
  • 34. Watanabe J, Miki A, Sasanuma H, et al. Metal vs plastic stents for preoperative biliary drainage in patients with periampullary cancer: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci 2023;30:6–20.ArticlePubMedPDF
  • 35. Endo Y, Tanaka M, Kitago M, et al. Comparison between plastic and metallic biliary stent placement for preoperative patients with pancreatic head cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Surg Oncol 2024;31:1319–1327.ArticlePubMed
  • 36. Cao J, Peng C, Ding X, et al. Risk factors for post-ERCP cholecystitis: a single-center retrospective study. BMC Gastroenterol 2018;18:128.ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
  • 37. Coté GA, Kumar N, Ansstas M, et al. Risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis with placement of self-expandable metallic stents. Gastrointest Endosc 2010;72:748–754.ArticlePubMed
  • 38. Tamura T, Yamai T, Uza N, et al. Adverse events of self-expandable metal stent placement for malignant distal biliary obstruction: a large multicenter study. Gastrointest Endosc 2024;99:61–72.ArticlePubMed
  • 39. Sogabe Y, Kodama Y, Honjo H, et al. Tumor invasion to the arteries feeding the gallbladder as a novel risk factor for cholecystitis after metallic stent placement in distal malignant biliary obstruction. Dig Endosc 2018;30:380–387.ArticlePubMedPDF
  • 40. Ishii T, Hayashi T, Yamazaki H, et al. Risk factors for early and late cholecystitis after covered metal stent placement for distal biliary obstruction. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci 2023;30:1180–1187.ArticlePubMed
  • 41. Nakai Y, Isayama H, Kawakubo K, et al. Metallic stent with high axial force as a risk factor for cholecystitis in distal malignant biliary obstruction. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2014;29:1557–1562.ArticlePubMedPDF
  • 42. Ishii T, Kin T, Yamazaki H, et al. Prophylactic endoscopic gallbladder stent placement for cholecystitis after covered metal stent placement for distal biliary obstruction (with video). Gastrointest Endosc 2023;98:36–42.ArticlePubMed
  • 43. Toyonaga H, Hayashi T, Yamazaki H, et al. Efficacy of pancreatic duct stenting to prevent postendoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis after covered self-expandable metal stent deployment. Dig Endosc 2023;35:369–376.ArticlePubMedPDF
  • 44. Kataoka F, Inoue D, Watanabe M, et al. Efficacy of 6-mm diameter fully covered self-expandable metallic stents in preoperative biliary drainage for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. DEN Open 2021;2:e55.ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
  • 45. Harai S, Hijioka S, Yamada R, et al. Safety of biliary drainage with 6-mm metallic stent for preoperative obstructive jaundice in pancreatic cancer: purple six study. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2024;39:1442–1449.ArticlePubMed
  • 46. Kitano M, Yamashita Y, Tanaka K, et al. Covered self-expandable metal stents with an anti-migration system improve patency duration without increased complications compared with uncovered stents for distal biliary obstruction caused by pancreatic carcinoma: a randomized multicenter trial. Am J Gastroenterol 2013;108:1713–1722.ArticlePubMedPDF
  • 47. Yamashita Y, Tachikawa A, Shimokawa T, et al. Covered versus uncovered metal stent for endoscopic drainage of a malignant distal biliary obstruction: meta-analysis. Dig Endosc 2022;34:938–951.ArticlePubMedPDF
  • 48. Seo DW, Sherman S, Dua KS, et al. Covered and uncovered biliary metal stents provide similar relief of biliary obstruction during neoadjuvant therapy in pancreatic cancer: a randomized trial. Gastrointest Endosc 2019;90:602–612.ArticlePubMed

Figure & Data

REFERENCES

    Citations

    Citations to this article as recorded by  

      • PubReader PubReader
      • ePub LinkePub Link
      • Cite
        CITE
        export Copy Download
        Close
        Download Citation
        Download a citation file in RIS format that can be imported by all major citation management software, including EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and Reference Manager.
        Format:
        • RIS — For EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and most other reference management software
        • BibTeX — For JabRef, BibDesk, and other BibTeX-specific software
        Include:
        • Citation for the content below
        Self-expandable metal vs. plastic stents for preoperative biliary drainage in patients receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy
        Clin Endosc. 2025;58(6):817-825.   Published online July 30, 2025
        DOI: https://doi.org/10.5946/ce.2025.045
        Close
      • XML DownloadXML Download
      Figure
      • 0
      • 1
      • 2
      Related articles
      Self-expandable metal vs. plastic stents for preoperative biliary drainage in patients receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy
      Image Image Image
      Fig. 1. Placement of a fully covered self-expandable metal stent (FCSEMS) for biliary obstruction caused by pancreatic cancer. (A) Image of placement of an FCSEMS across a stricture in the bile duct caused by pancreatic cancer. (B) Endoscopic image of the FCSEMS in the papilla after stent placement across the stricture in the bile duct. (C) A computed tomography (CT) scan image showing a mass in the head of the pancreas causing bile duct obstruction before neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC). (D) A CT scan image showing that the tumor decreased in size following NAC after FCSEMS placement.
      Fig. 2. Placement of a plastic stent (PS) for biliary obstruction caused by pancreatic cancer. (A) Image of placement of a PS across a stricture in the bile duct caused by pancreatic cancer. (B) Endoscopic image of the PS in the papilla after stent placement across the stricture in the bile duct. (C) A computed tomography (CT) scan image showing a mass in the head of the pancreas causing bile duct obstruction before neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC). (D) A CT scan image showing that the tumor decreased in size following NAC after PS placement.
      Fig. 3. Adverse event of stent placement for preoperative biliary drainage. (A) Endoscopic image of cholangitis caused by occlusion of a plastic stent. (B) A computed tomography (CT) scan image showing acute pancreatitis caused by placement of a self-expandable metal stent (SEMS). Peripancreatic effusion associated with post-ERCP pancreatitis (arrowheads). (C) A CT scan image showing acute cholecystitis caused by SEMS placement. Gallbladder wall thickening with pericholecystic inflammatory spread (arrowheads).

      Fig. 1.

      Fig. 2.

      Fig. 3.

      Self-expandable metal vs. plastic stents for preoperative biliary drainage in patients receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy
      Study Published year Study design Type of SEMS (n) Type of PS (n) RBO (SEMS) RBO (PS, %) TRBO (SEMS) TRBO (PS) Adverse events (SEMS) Adverse events (PS) Rate of postoperative adverse event (SEMS, %) Rate of postoperative adverse event (PS, %)
      Tsuboi et al.28 2016 Retrospective FCSEMS (11) 7 Fr (9) 0% 72.7 60 Days 0% RBO, 90 days 0% RBO 60 Days 45%, RBO, 90 days 90% RBO None Cholangitis 72.7% 29 18
      Gardner et al.29 2016 RCT FCSEMS (16) 10 Fr (21) FCSEMS 25%, UCSEMS 35% 52 FCSEMS median 219 days, UCSEMS median 88 days Median 75 days PEP FCSEMS 19%, PEP UCSEMS 18% None - -
      UCSEMS (17)
      Nakamura et al.30 2019 Retrospective UCSEMS (17) 7-8.5 Fr (26) 17.6% 34.6 - - - - 47 50
      Kuwatani et al.31 2020 Retrospective SEMS (17) PS (12) 6% 83 Not-reached Median 63.5 days Abdominal pain 6% None 47.1 50
      Tamura et al.25 2021 RCT FCSEMS (11) 10 Fr (11) 18.2% 72.8 Not-reached Median 44 days Cholangitis 9.1%, cholecystitis 18.2% Cholangitis 63.6%, cholecystitis 9.1% 28.5 33.3
      Hasegawa et al.32 2021 Retrospective CSEMS (27) 7-8.5 Fr (40) 4% 39 Not-reached Median 40 days PEP 3.7%, cholecystitis 3.7% PEP 10%, cholecystitis 5.0% 19 20.0
      Table 1. Summary of studies comparing SEMSs and PSs for preoperative biliary drainage in pancreatic cancer patients receiving NAC

      SEMS, self-expandable metal stent; PS, plastic stent; NAC, neoadjuvant chemotherapy; RBO, recurrent biliary obstruction; TRBO, time to RBO; CSEMS, covered SEMS; FCSEMS, fully covered SEMS; UCSEMS, uncovered SEMS; PEP, post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis; RCT, randomized controlled trial; -, no information or applicable data is provided for that item.

      Table 1.

      Clin Endosc : Clinical Endoscopy Twitter Facebook
      © Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.
      Close layer
      TOP