2 622

Cited 62 times in

Comparison of efficacies between stents for malignant colorectal obstruction: a randomized, prospective study

DC Field Value Language
dc.contributor.author박재준-
dc.contributor.author이상길-
dc.contributor.author천재희-
dc.contributor.author홍성필-
dc.contributor.author김원호-
dc.contributor.author김태일-
dc.contributor.author문창모-
dc.contributor.author박세미-
dc.date.accessioned2015-04-23T16:58:17Z-
dc.date.available2015-04-23T16:58:17Z-
dc.date.issued2010-
dc.identifier.issn0016-5107-
dc.identifier.urihttps://ir.ymlib.yonsei.ac.kr/handle/22282913/101579-
dc.description.abstractBACKGROUND: Colonoscopic insertion of a self-expandable metallic stent (SEMS) has been widely performed for the treatment of malignant colorectal obstruction. Different types of stents could influence the efficacy and complication rate of stent use. OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and complication rates between two SEMSs, the uncovered WallFlex stent and the covered Comvi stent. DESIGN: A prospective, randomized study. SETTING: Tertiary-care academic medical center. PATIENTS: Between 2007 and 2009, a total of 151 patients with malignant colorectal obstruction were enrolled. INTERVENTION: Two types of colorectal SEMSs (the uncovered WallFlex stent by Boston Scientific Corp and the newly developed covered Comvi stent by Taewoong Medical Co) were inserted. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Technical success, clinical success, stent patency, and complication rate according to stent type. RESULTS: Technical failure occurred in 2 patients (1.3%); one was in the WallFlex group and the other in the Comvi group. Clinical failure developed in 9 patients (6.0%): 6 patients from the WallFlex group and 3 from the Comvi group. Complications because of cancer infiltration occurred more frequently in the WallFlex group (14.5% vs 3.8%). However, the rate of stent migration was higher in the Comvi group (21.1% vs 1.8%). The mean patency of the stent did not differ between the two groups (P = .50). LIMITATIONS: This was a single-center study. CONCLUSION: Both uncovered WallFlex and covered Comvi stents were suitable for relieving malignant colorectal obstruction. Tumor ingrowth was more common in the WallFlex group, but stent migration was more common in the Comvi group.-
dc.description.statementOfResponsibilityopen-
dc.format.extent304~310-
dc.relation.isPartOfGASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY-
dc.rightsCC BY-NC-ND 2.0 KR-
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.0/kr/-
dc.subject.MESHAdult-
dc.subject.MESHAged-
dc.subject.MESHAged, 80 and over-
dc.subject.MESHColon-
dc.subject.MESHColonoscopy/methods*-
dc.subject.MESHColorectal Neoplasms/complications*-
dc.subject.MESHColorectal Neoplasms/diagnosis-
dc.subject.MESHColorectal Neoplasms/surgery-
dc.subject.MESHFemale-
dc.subject.MESHFollow-Up Studies-
dc.subject.MESHHumans-
dc.subject.MESHIntestinal Obstruction/diagnosis-
dc.subject.MESHIntestinal Obstruction/etiology-
dc.subject.MESHIntestinal Obstruction/surgery*-
dc.subject.MESHMale-
dc.subject.MESHMiddle Aged-
dc.subject.MESHProspective Studies-
dc.subject.MESHProsthesis Design-
dc.subject.MESHStents*-
dc.subject.MESHTreatment Outcome-
dc.subject.MESHYoung Adult-
dc.titleComparison of efficacies between stents for malignant colorectal obstruction: a randomized, prospective study-
dc.typeArticle-
dc.contributor.collegeCollege of Medicine (의과대학)-
dc.contributor.departmentDept. of Internal Medicine (내과학)-
dc.contributor.googleauthorSemi Park-
dc.contributor.googleauthorJae Hee Cheon-
dc.contributor.googleauthorJae Jun Park-
dc.contributor.googleauthorChang Mo Moon-
dc.contributor.googleauthorSung Pil Hong-
dc.contributor.googleauthorSang-Kil Lee-
dc.contributor.googleauthorTae Il Kim-
dc.contributor.googleauthorWon Ho Kim-
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.gie.2010.02.046-
dc.admin.authorfalse-
dc.admin.mappingfalse-
dc.contributor.localIdA01636-
dc.contributor.localIdA02812-
dc.contributor.localIdA04404-
dc.contributor.localIdA00774-
dc.contributor.localIdA01079-
dc.contributor.localIdA01390-
dc.contributor.localIdA01518-
dc.contributor.localIdA04030-
dc.relation.journalcodeJ00920-
dc.identifier.eissn1097-6779-
dc.identifier.pmid20561619-
dc.identifier.urlhttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016510710002580-
dc.contributor.alternativeNamePark, Jae Jun-
dc.contributor.alternativeNameLee, Sang Kil-
dc.contributor.alternativeNameCheon, Jae Hee-
dc.contributor.alternativeNameHong, Sung Pil-
dc.contributor.alternativeNameKim, Won Ho-
dc.contributor.alternativeNameKim, Tae Il-
dc.contributor.alternativeNameMoon, Chang Mo-
dc.contributor.alternativeNamePark, Se Mi-
dc.contributor.affiliatedAuthorPark, Jae Jun-
dc.contributor.affiliatedAuthorLee, Sang Kil-
dc.contributor.affiliatedAuthorHong, Sung Pil-
dc.contributor.affiliatedAuthorKim, Won Ho-
dc.contributor.affiliatedAuthorKim, Tae Il-
dc.contributor.affiliatedAuthorMoon, Chang Mo-
dc.contributor.affiliatedAuthorPark, Se Mi-
dc.contributor.affiliatedAuthorCheon, Jae Hee-
dc.citation.volume72-
dc.citation.number2-
dc.citation.startPage304-
dc.citation.endPage310-
dc.identifier.bibliographicCitationGASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY, Vol.72(2) : 304-310, 2010-
dc.identifier.rimsid40101-
dc.type.rimsART-
Appears in Collections:
1. College of Medicine (의과대학) > Dept. of Internal Medicine (내과학교실) > 1. Journal Papers

qrcode

Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.