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 > Ahead-of print articles > Article
Review Endoscopic strategy and covered self-expandable metal stents for malignant hilar biliary obstruction
Tae Hoon Lee1orcid, Jong Ho Moon2orcid, Sang-Heum Park1orcid

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5946/ce.2025.343
Published online: December 3, 2025

1Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine, Soonchunhyang University Cheonan Hospital, Soonchunhyang University School of Medicine, Cheonan, Korea

2Department of Internal Medicine, Soonchunhyang University Bucheon Hospital, Soonchunhyang University School of Medicine, Bucheon, Korea

Correspondence: Tae Hoon Lee Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine, Soonchunhyang University Cheonan Hospital, Soonchunhyang University School of Medicine, 31 Suncheonhyang 6-gil, Dongnam-gu, Cheonan 31151, Korea E-mail: thlee9@schmc.ac.kr
• Received: September 19, 2025   • Revised: October 15, 2025   • Accepted: October 16, 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.

  • 1,141 Views
  • 135 Download
Full Article

Download PDF Download PDF

  • Malignant hilar biliary obstruction (MHO), most commonly caused by cholangiocarcinoma, is an aggressive condition with a poor prognosis. Because most patients with MHO are unsuitable for primary surgical resection at presentation because of advanced age or comorbidities, palliative biliary drainage is essential to relieve obstructive jaundice and improve the quality of life. Endoscopic drainage has become the preferred palliative approach, with the choice between plastic and metal stents depending on subsequent therapeutic plans, such as systemic chemotherapy or local ablative therapies. Among biliary stents, self-expandable metal stents (SEMSs) are widely used, typically in their uncovered form. However, unlike plastic stents, uncovered SEMSs cannot be removed once deployed, and endoscopic revision is technically challenging. To improve stent patency and facilitate removability, covered SEMSs (CSEMSs) were developed, and are now commonly used in distal malignant biliary obstruction. Nevertheless, in advanced MHO, the primary use of CSEMSs remains controversial. This review summarizes recent endoscopic strategies for advanced MHO, the evolution of CSEMSs, their clinical outcomes, current limitations, and future directions.
  • Keywords: Covered; Hilar; Metals; Plastics
Malignant hilar biliary obstruction (MHO), most commonly caused by cholangiocarcinoma, gallbladder cancer, or metastatic malignancies, is an aggressive condition associated with a poor prognosis.1 Surgical resection remains the only curative option. However, most patients are ineligible for surgery at diagnosis because of locally advanced or unresectable disease, or poor performance status resulting from age or comorbidities.2,3 Accordingly, palliative biliary drainage is crucial for relieving obstructive jaundice, improving the quality of life, and enabling systemic chemotherapy or radiotherapy.
Endoscopic biliary decompression is currently recommended as the first-line approach, even for advanced MHO. According to recent guidelines and expert consensus, multi-segmental drainage using either plastic stents (PSs) or self-expandable metal stents (SEMSs) is advised to achieve adequate liver volume drainage.4 PSs are generally preferred when the therapeutic plan remains undetermined or when systemic chemotherapy or local ablative therapy is anticipated.4,5 Although PSs are advantageous because of their ease of placement and removal, their relatively short patency and high occlusion rates remain major limitations. In contrast, SEMSs provide longer patency and reduce the need for reintervention; however, they are typically uncovered, making stent revision in cases of dysfunction more technically challenging than that with PSs.
To address these limitations, fully or partially covered SEMSs (CSEMSs) have been developed as alternatives to PSs or uncovered SEMSs. CSEMSs offer several potential advantages, including prolonged patency and removability, but also present limitations that require careful evaluation in the management of advanced MHO, particularly when compared with their well-established use in distal malignant biliary obstruction. A thorough understanding of both their benefits and drawbacks is therefore essential for selecting the optimal drainage strategy.
For effective drainage in advanced MHO, several preprocedural considerations must be addressed. First, a thorough understanding of biliary anatomy and accurate determination of the drainage site are essential. MHO is morphologically classified according to the extent of biliary invasion using the Bismuth-Corlette classification,6 which is critical not only for determining the scope of surgical resection but also for selecting the appropriate drainage site. High-grade strictures, such as Bismuth-Corlette types III and IV, typically require bilateral or multiple drainage procedures, unlike types I and II.2,3,7-9 Inadequate drainage after contrast injection increases the risk of complications such as cholangitis and hepatic abscesses, which can negatively affect survival. Therefore, in patients with high-level strictures, careful planning of the drainage site and method before endoscopic intervention is crucial.8 Preprocedural assessment using multidetector computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging/cholangiopancreatography (MRI/MRCP) provides detailed anatomic information for diagnosis and staging. These imaging modalities are valuable not only for evaluating resectability but also for identifying the optimal site for biliary drainage.2,3,8,9 Three-dimensional reconstruction of CT or MRI images allows predetermination of potential drainage locations. Importantly, if tumor-related hepatic parenchymal atrophy or intrahepatic bile duct involvement without viable parenchyma is present, unnecessary drainage or contrast injection should be avoided or minimized during the procedure.1-4
Regarding drainage volume, draining more than 50% of the liver volume has been associated with improved survival compared with less extensive drainage (119 vs. 59 days, p=0.005).10 Furthermore, Caillol et al.11 reported that drainage of more than 80% of viable liver volume was associated with significantly longer survival compared with less than 80% drainage (hazard ratio [HR], 2.46; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.16–5.23; p=0.02). Accordingly, in patients with Bismuth type II or higher MHO, drainage of at least 50% of the liver volume is recommended to achieve effective decompression.4,7
In summary, for high-level MHO, preprocedural imaging is essential to determine the appropriate drainage site, prevent unnecessary stenting, and select the optimal approach, either endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) or percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD), to achieve drainage of more than 50% of the liver volume. In addition, future treatment strategies, including surgical resectability, expected survival, and potential adjunctive therapies such as chemotherapy or local treatment, should be considered when planning biliary drainage.
Recent guidelines and consensus statements regarding drainage strategies for MHO are summarized in Table 1.4,5,12,13 In unresectable MHO, primary endoscopic palliation is currently recommended to improve quality of life and facilitate systemic chemotherapy. However, in patients with perihilar strictures of suspected malignant origin, the available evidence remains insufficient to recommend either ERCP or PTBD as the preferred initial approach.12,13 For advanced perihilar obstructions, PTBD or a combined ERCP–PTBD approach may be considered. Although endoscopic drainage is generally preferred, the final decision should be individualized based on the patient’s condition, disease extent, and operator expertise. When endoscopic drainage fails, endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) is increasingly favored over PTBD.4
The choice between PSs and SEMSs remains controversial because each has distinct advantages and limitations. Current guidelines and expert consensus suggest the following strategy: PSs should be used initially when systemic therapy is planned or when the optimal drainage approach has not yet been determined. SEMSs may be appropriate for patients with limited life expectancy (<3 months) or for those prioritizing fewer repeat interventions.4,5,12,13 Thus, current practice increasingly incorporates both expected survival and overall therapeutic strategy into the decision-making process.
With advances in systemic therapies for MHO, including chemotherapy, immunotherapy, and targeted therapy, survival may now exceed the patency period of uncovered SEMSs, which are nonremovable.14 Although SEMSs provide higher technical and clinical success rates, this advantage is offset by a significantly increased risk of stent-related adverse events such as migration, occlusion, ingrowth, and overgrowth, particularly during prolonged survival (odds ratio [OR], 4.85; 95% CI, 3.23–7.27).15 Therefore, the use of removable PSs is recommended as the initial approach in patients undergoing systemic therapy, given that uncovered SEMSs cannot be removed and are more difficult to revise.
PSs and SEMSs each have distinct advantages and limitations. PSs are inexpensive, easy to insert, and can be readily exchanged in the event of occlusion. They are particularly useful in MHO, where extrahepatic bile duct dilation is often minimal, as they allow temporary dilation of the native duct lumen with relatively few adverse events.2 However, their smaller diameter limits long-term patency. Typically measuring at least 10 to 12 cm in length, PSs are placed across the duodenal papilla, which may promote biofilm formation through reflux of duodenal contents. This predisposes the stent to occlusion and increases the risk of spontaneous migration.3,8 While insertion is technically straightforward, efficacy does not appear to differ substantially among PS types. However, one retrospective study reported that straight-type PSs were associated with significantly more stent-related adverse events than double-pigtail PSs (OR, 6.74; 95% CI, 3.95–11.45; p<0.001).15
In contrast, SEMSs are deployed using delivery catheters and can be advanced across severe strictures more easily than PSs. Because of their open wire mesh, SEMSs do not obstruct intrahepatic secondary branches, provide longer patency, and reduce the need for reintervention, thereby improving cost-effectiveness.8 The 2013 Asia-Pacific consensus and the 2018 European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guidelines recommend SEMSs for patients with Bismuth type II–IV hilar cholangiocarcinoma (HCCA) and an expected survival exceeding three months.7,12 Similarly, the 2021 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guideline supports SEMS placement in unresectable HCCA with a prognosis of less than three months to minimize repeat procedures.5 Nonetheless, when treatment planning or resectability remains uncertain, initial placement with PSs is generally preferred.5
For bilateral SEMS placement, two main techniques are used: stent-in-stent (SIS) and side-by-side (SBS).2 Although each has unique advantages and drawbacks, recent meta-analyses found no significant differences in complication rates, stent patency, or survival outcomes, although SIS may achieve higher technical success.16 Interestingly, this finding contrasts with earlier assumptions that SBS placement is technically easier than SIS. The discrepancy may reflect limited data and the high level of operator expertise in recent studies.
Regarding stent positioning, devices can be deployed either transpapillary (across the papilla into the duodenum) or intraductally (above the papilla within the bile duct). Transpapillary placement facilitates reintervention in cases of occlusion but increases the risk of duodenal reflux, leading to biofilm formation, sludge, stone development, and cholangitis. Intraductal placement may theoretically reduce these risks; however, clinical evidence remains inconclusive. One study comparing both methods in MHO found no significant differences in technical success or stent patency, although transpapillary placement was associated with a higher incidence of pancreatitis and other adverse events.17 While intraductal placement may be theoretically advantageous, transpapillary deployment could be more practical for long-term survivors, given the higher likelihood of stent occlusion and the need for reintervention.
Types of CSEMS
CSEMS can be categorized into fully covered and partially covered types, with multihole fully CSEMSs also reported for hilar drainage.18-24 However, the existing literature primarily consists of case reports and retrospective studies, with few well-designed, large-scale comparative studies assessing the efficacy of different CSEMS types. Consequently, the design that provides the greatest benefit and the superior insertion method remain unclear. Regarding stent diameter, both 6-mm and 8-mm models have been used, and neither has been associated with serious adverse events related to overexpansion. Despite reports suggesting effectiveness, current guidelines do not recommend CSEMSs as the primary drainage modality.4,5,12,13
Clinical outcomes
Unlike distal biliary obstruction, data on the efficacy and safety of CSEMSs in advanced MHO remain limited. The available evidence reflects theoretical concerns that CSEMS deployment in the perihilar region may inadvertently occlude peripheral intrahepatic ducts, predisposing patients to serious infectious complications such as liver abscesses and cholangitis. These risks have contributed to the cautious adoption of CSEMSs in this setting.
A recent prospective randomized study compared CSEMSs and PSs in bilateral SBS deployment for MHO. The study found that CSEMSs had a significantly longer mean time to recurrent biliary obstruction (RBO) than PSs, despite a higher stent migration rate (48%).19 Overall adverse event rates were similar between groups, suggesting that CSEMSs may be preferable to PSs, with complications such as liver abscess not considered clinically significant.
According to a recent meta-analysis, the technical success rates of CSEMSs ranged from 93.3% to 100%, while clinical success rates ranged from 82.4% to 100%, showing no significant difference compared with uncovered SEMSs or PSs. The overall incidence of complications, including cholangitis, cholecystitis, pancreatitis, and liver abscess, was reported in approximately 5.9% to 32% of cases.25 The main concern regarding CSEMSs has been peripheral bile duct obstruction–related events, particularly liver abscess and cholangitis. Although the reported frequencies varied, the highest rates of liver abscess and cholangitis were 10% and 20%, respectively. Notably, liver abscess occurred less frequently than initially expected (0%–10%), whereas cholangitis was observed in up to 20% of cases, likely due to longer follow-up durations associated with prolonged survival.25 As survival improves, RBO becomes an inevitable outcome.
Among reported complications, stent migration occurred in up to 48% of cases,19 representing a notable limitation of CSEMSs. The meta-analysis also demonstrated that clinical success, overall adverse events, and migration rates did not differ significantly according to stent type (fully vs. partially covered), diameter (6 mm vs. 8 mm), or distal tip position (above vs. across the papilla).25 The RBO rate varied widely (8.6%–88%), but reintervention was technically successful in 84.6% to 100% of cases. The median time to RBO ranged from 79 to 190 days.25
Of the six studies focusing on unresectable MHO, only one was a prospective comparative study with a limited sample size. Considerable heterogeneity in methodology, stent characteristics, and follow-up duration, along with small patient numbers, represented major limitations.25 These factors likely contributed to statistical and publication bias. Nevertheless, several studies using CSEMSs have demonstrated promising results in advanced MHO. Based on these findings, large-scale, well-controlled comparative trials and tailored CSEMS designs are warranted to further define their clinical utility.
Limitations of CSEMS
The limitations of CSEMSs in the management of biliary obstruction are multifactorial. First, the anatomical complexity of the biliary tree, particularly in the perihilar region, poses substantial challenges. This area is characterized by the confluence of multiple intrahepatic bile ducts, and placement of a fully CSEMS in this region carries the risk of occluding peripheral ducts. Such occlusion can increase the incidence of liver abscesses and cholangitis.
Second, the covered membrane may predispose patients to sludge formation, biofilm development, and bile stasis, thereby increasing the frequency of cholangitis and RBO. Sludge formation remains a key drawback of CSEMSs, particularly in patients with prior cholangitis or RBO. Currently, no functional CSEMSs with sludge-inhibitory or anti-reflux properties have shown superior outcomes, and these specialized designs are not widely available for managing MHO. Fully CSEMSs are typically positioned across the papilla to allow removal in case of stent malfunction; however, this placement may facilitate sludge accumulation on the covered membrane, underscoring the need for improved stent designs.
Third, because the covered surface of a CSEMS does not firmly adhere to the bile duct wall, the risk of stent migration is relatively high, with reported migration rates reaching 48%.
Fourth, obstruction of the cystic duct or pancreatic duct by a CSEMS can lead to complications such as cholecystitis or pancreatitis. This risk is particularly relevant in cases of hilar obstruction when the stent is deployed near the cystic duct orifice. Although mild pancreatitis has been reported in some patients, the removability of fully CSEMSs remains a major advantage.
Finally, technical difficulties may arise during reintervention. Although CSEMSs are theoretically removable, reintervention may be hindered by tumor progression, stent ingrowth or overgrowth, or sludge accumulation, complicating subsequent procedures.
The future of CSEMS in MHO
The primary use of CSEMSs in advanced MHO remains controversial. However, recent studies indicate that complication rates are not significantly higher than expected and that outcomes are comparable to those with uncovered SEMSs or PSs. The ability of CSEMSs to overcome the limitations of PSs while maintaining the advantages of uncovered SEMSs is particularly promising. Nonetheless, confirming their clinical value will require the development of stents specifically optimized for advanced MHO, as well as large-scale comparative studies evaluating long-term safety and efficacy.
Although current guidelines do not recommend CSEMSs as the primary drainage modality for MHO, recent evidence demonstrates increasing clinical interest, particularly in patients receiving systemic or local therapies, for whom PSs are typically used first. Emerging but limited data suggest that CSEMSs may achieve comparable complication rates to PSs while providing longer patency. These findings suggest a potential role for CSEMSs either as an alternative after PS dysfunction or, in selected cases, as an initial drainage option. However, prospective multicenter randomized controlled trials comparing fully and partially CSEMSs with uncovered SEMSs or PSs are needed to clarify their clinical utility.
Table 1.
Comparison of presented guidelines and consensus
ESGE clinical guideline (2018)12 ASGE guideline (2021)5 ACG clinical guideline (2023)13 The updated Asia-Pacific consensus (2024)4
Assessment and drainage In high volume centers with a multidisciplinary hepatobiliary team. The panel suggests ERCP or PTBD. The final decision should be based on patient preferences, disease characteristics, and local expertise. In patients with a perihilar stricture due to suspected malignancy, the evidence is insufficient to recommend for or against ERCP vs PTBD. In Bismuth type III–IV, two or more stents may be required to obtain >50% drainage.
Preoperative biliary drainage Against routine preoperative biliary drainage in patients with MHO. Suggests against routine use of PTBD as first-line therapy compared with ERCP. Preoperative biliary drainage can be performed if clinically indicated; however, this should be balanced with the risk of infection.
Palliative drainage ERCP for Bismuth types I and II, and PTBD or a combination of PTBD and ERCP for Bismuth types III and IV, to be modulated according to local expertise. Suggests placement of bilateral stents compared with a single unilateral stent. The technical goal is to drain >50% of the nonatrophic liver, with each sector contributing roughly one-third of the liver’s volume. The selection of segments to drain and the number of stents used is dependent on the Bismuth classification. The liver volume to be drained, more than 50% of viable liver.
Bismuth types II–IV; drainage of ≥50% of the liver volume.
Stents for palliative drainage Uncovered SEMSs for palliative drainage of MHO. PSs, if an optimal drainage strategy has not been established. SEMSs in patients with a short life expectancy (<3 months) or those who place high value on avoiding repeated interventions. The evidence is insufficient to recommend for or against PS vs uncovered SEMS placement. If SEMS is chosen for drainage of a MHO, an effective drainage strategy using PS should be proven first. In the patient who may respond well to systemic chemotherapy multiple PS with scheduled stent exchange may be preferred over SEMS. SEMS by either side-by-side or stent-in-stent approach should be considered in the patient who is not a candidate for or who has failed systemic chemotherapy.
EUS-intervention If ERCP is unsuccessful or impossible, suggest EUS-BD over PTBD, based on fewer adverse events, when performed by an endoscopist with substantial experience in these interventional EUS procedures. If additional transmural EUS-BD is required, a transgastric approach is recommended for the left hepatic lobe. If acute cholecystitis develops after biliary metallic stenting, EUS-guided gallbladder decompression with or without permanent stenting of the gallbladder is an alternative to percutaneous cholecystostomy or surgery.
Photodynamic therapy or Radiofrequency ablation Suggest the use of adjuvant endobiliary ablation (photodynamic therapy or radiofrequency ablation) plus PS placement over PS placement alone. Photodynamic therapy or endobiliary radiofrequency ablation may be used as adjunctive treatment prior to PS or SEMS placement to improve stent patency and patient survival.

ESGE, European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy; ASGE, American Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy; AGC, American College of Gastroenterology; ERCP, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography; PTBD, percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage; MHO, malignant hilar obstruction; PS, plastic stent; SEMS, self-expandable metal stent; EUS-BD, endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage.

  • 1. Aljiffry M, Abdulelah A, Walsh M, et al. Evidence-based approach to cholangiocarcinoma: a systematic review of the current literature. J Am Coll Surg 2009;208:134–147.ArticlePubMed
  • 2. Lee TH, Moon JH, Park SH. Biliary stenting for hilar malignant biliary obstruction. Dig Endosc 2020;32:275–286.ArticlePubMedPDF
  • 3. Lee TH, Moon JH, Stuart S. Role of ERCP in malignant hilar biliary obstruction. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am 2022;32:427–453.ArticlePubMed
  • 4. Angsuwatcharakon P, Kulpatcharapong S, Chuncharunee A, et al. The updated Asia-Pacific consensus statement on the role of endoscopic management in malignant hilar biliary obstruction. Endosc Int Open 2024;12:E1065–E1074.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 5. Qumseya BJ, Jamil LH, Elmunzer BJ, et al. ASGE guideline on the role of endoscopy in the management of malignant hilar obstruction. Gastrointest Endosc 2021;94:222–234.ArticlePubMed
  • 6. Bismuth H, Castaing D, Traynor O. Resection or palliation: priority of surgery in the treatment of hilar cancer. World J Surg 1988;12:39–47.ArticlePubMedPDF
  • 7. Rerknimitr R, Angsuwatcharakon P, Ratanachu-ek T, et al. Asia-Pacific consensus recommendations for endoscopic and interventional management of hilar cholangiocarcinoma. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2013;28:593–607.ArticlePubMed
  • 8. Pal P, Lakhtakia S. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided intervention for inaccessible papilla in advanced malignant hilar biliary obstruction. Clin Endosc 2023;56:143–154.ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
  • 9. Naitoh I, Inoue T. Optimal endoscopic drainage strategy for unresectable malignant hilar biliary obstruction. Clin Endosc 2023;56:135–142.ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
  • 10. Vienne A, Hobeika E, Gouya H, et al. Prediction of drainage effectiveness during endoscopic stenting of malignant hilar strictures: the role of liver volume assessment. Gastrointest Endosc 2010;72:728–735.ArticlePubMed
  • 11. Caillol F, Bories E, Zemmour C, et al. Palliative endoscopic drainage of malignant stenosis of biliary confluence: Efficiency of multiple drainage approach to drain a maximum of liver segments. United European Gastroenterol J 2019;7:52–59.ArticlePubMedPDF
  • 12. Dumonceau JM, Tringali A, Papanikolaou IS, et al. Endoscopic biliary stenting: indications, choice of stents, and results: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Clinical Guideline - Updated October 2017. Endoscopy 2018;50:910–930.ArticlePubMed
  • 13. Elmunzer BJ, Maranki JL, Gómez V, et al. ACG clinical guideline: diagnosis and management of biliary strictures. Am J Gastroenterol 2023;118:405–426.ArticlePubMed
  • 14. Oh DY, Ruth He A, Qin S, et al. Durvalumab plus gemcitabine and cisplatin in advanced biliary tract cancer. NEJM Evid 2022;1:EVIDoa2200015.ArticlePubMed
  • 15. Al Nakshabandi A, Ali FS, Albustami I, et al. Biliary drainage in hilar and perihilar cholangiocarcinoma: 25-year experience at a tertiary cancer center. Gastrointest Endosc 2024;99:938–949.ArticlePubMed
  • 16. Shim SR, Lee TH, Yang JK, et al. Endoscopic bilateral stent-in-stent versus stent-by-stent deployment in advanced malignant hilar obstruction: a meta-analysis and systematic review. Dig Dis Sci 2022;67:716–728.ArticlePubMedPDF
  • 17. Cosgrove N, Siddiqui AA, Adler DG, et al. A comparison of bilateral side-by-side metal stents deployed above and across the sphincter of oddi in the management of malignant hilar biliary obstruction. J Clin Gastroenterol 2017;51:528–533.ArticlePubMed
  • 18. Yoshida T, Hara K, Imaoka H, et al. Benefits of side-by-side deployment of 6-mm covered self-expandable metal stents for hilar malignant biliary obstructions. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci 2016;23:548–555.ArticlePubMed
  • 19. Paik WH, Jung MK, Kim DU, et al. Side-by-side placement of fully covered metal stents versus conventional 7F plastic stents in malignant hilar biliary obstruction: Prospective randomized controlled trial. Dig Endosc 2024;36:473–480.ArticlePubMed
  • 20. Inoue T, Okumura F, Naitoh I, et al. Feasibility of the placement of a novel 6-mm diameter threaded fully covered self-expandable metal stent for malignant hilar biliary obstructions (with videos). Gastrointest Endosc 2016;84:352–357.ArticlePubMed
  • 21. Kitamura K, Yamamiya A, Ishii Y, et al. Side-by-side partially covered self-expandable metal stent placement for malignant hilar biliary obstruction. Endosc Int Open 2017;5:E1211–E1217.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 22. Matsubara S, Nakagawa K, Suda K, et al. The feasibility of whole-liver drainage with a novel 8 mm fully covered self-expandable metal stent possessing an ultra-slim introducer for malignant hilar biliary obstructions. J Clin Med 2022;11:6110.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 23. Mori H, Kawashima H, Ohno E, et al. Comparison of an inside stent and a fully covered self-expandable metallic stent as preoperative biliary drainage for patients with resectable perihilar cholangiocarcinoma. Can J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2022;2022:3005210.ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
  • 24. Takahashi S, Fujisawa T, Ushio M, et al. Retrospective evaluation of slim fully covered self-expandable metallic stent for unresectable malignant hilar biliary obstruction. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci 2023;30:408–415.ArticlePubMedPDF
  • 25. Chung KH, Lee KJ, Joseph AA, et al. Efficacy and safety of covered self-expandable metal stents for malignant hilar biliary obstruction: systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastrointest Endosc 2025;101:350–357.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
        Endoscopic strategy and covered self-expandable metal stents for malignant hilar biliary obstruction
        Close
      • XML DownloadXML Download
      Related articles
      Endoscopic strategy and covered self-expandable metal stents for malignant hilar biliary obstruction
      Endoscopic strategy and covered self-expandable metal stents for malignant hilar biliary obstruction
      ESGE clinical guideline (2018)12 ASGE guideline (2021)5 ACG clinical guideline (2023)13 The updated Asia-Pacific consensus (2024)4
      Assessment and drainage In high volume centers with a multidisciplinary hepatobiliary team. The panel suggests ERCP or PTBD. The final decision should be based on patient preferences, disease characteristics, and local expertise. In patients with a perihilar stricture due to suspected malignancy, the evidence is insufficient to recommend for or against ERCP vs PTBD. In Bismuth type III–IV, two or more stents may be required to obtain >50% drainage.
      Preoperative biliary drainage Against routine preoperative biliary drainage in patients with MHO. Suggests against routine use of PTBD as first-line therapy compared with ERCP. Preoperative biliary drainage can be performed if clinically indicated; however, this should be balanced with the risk of infection.
      Palliative drainage ERCP for Bismuth types I and II, and PTBD or a combination of PTBD and ERCP for Bismuth types III and IV, to be modulated according to local expertise. Suggests placement of bilateral stents compared with a single unilateral stent. The technical goal is to drain >50% of the nonatrophic liver, with each sector contributing roughly one-third of the liver’s volume. The selection of segments to drain and the number of stents used is dependent on the Bismuth classification. The liver volume to be drained, more than 50% of viable liver.
      Bismuth types II–IV; drainage of ≥50% of the liver volume.
      Stents for palliative drainage Uncovered SEMSs for palliative drainage of MHO. PSs, if an optimal drainage strategy has not been established. SEMSs in patients with a short life expectancy (<3 months) or those who place high value on avoiding repeated interventions. The evidence is insufficient to recommend for or against PS vs uncovered SEMS placement. If SEMS is chosen for drainage of a MHO, an effective drainage strategy using PS should be proven first. In the patient who may respond well to systemic chemotherapy multiple PS with scheduled stent exchange may be preferred over SEMS. SEMS by either side-by-side or stent-in-stent approach should be considered in the patient who is not a candidate for or who has failed systemic chemotherapy.
      EUS-intervention If ERCP is unsuccessful or impossible, suggest EUS-BD over PTBD, based on fewer adverse events, when performed by an endoscopist with substantial experience in these interventional EUS procedures. If additional transmural EUS-BD is required, a transgastric approach is recommended for the left hepatic lobe. If acute cholecystitis develops after biliary metallic stenting, EUS-guided gallbladder decompression with or without permanent stenting of the gallbladder is an alternative to percutaneous cholecystostomy or surgery.
      Photodynamic therapy or Radiofrequency ablation Suggest the use of adjuvant endobiliary ablation (photodynamic therapy or radiofrequency ablation) plus PS placement over PS placement alone. Photodynamic therapy or endobiliary radiofrequency ablation may be used as adjunctive treatment prior to PS or SEMS placement to improve stent patency and patient survival.
      Table 1. Comparison of presented guidelines and consensus

      ESGE, European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy; ASGE, American Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy; AGC, American College of Gastroenterology; ERCP, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography; PTBD, percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage; MHO, malignant hilar obstruction; PS, plastic stent; SEMS, self-expandable metal stent; EUS-BD, endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage.

      Table 1.

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