Table 1

Summary of studies comparing CDS versus HGS

Author (year)Study designTotal no subjectsType of stent used (n=#)Technical success CDS versus HGS rate, % (n=#)Clinical success CDS versus HGS rate, % (n=#)Total adverse events CDS versus HGS rate, % (n=#)
Kim34
(2012)
Single Centre, Retrospective13 (9 CDS; 4 HGS)SEMS (13)100 (9/9) vs 75 (3/4)100% (9/9) vs 50 (2/4)22 (3/9) vs 50 (2/4)
Prachayakul35 (2013)Single Centre, Retrospective21 (6 CDS; 15 HGS)SEMS (21)100 (6/6) vs 93 (14/15)100 (6/6) vs 93 (14/15)33 (2/6) vs 0
Kawakubo36 (2014)Multicentre, Retrospective64 (44 CDS; 20 HGS)Plastic (27) pigtail (8) and SEMS (26)95 (42/44) vs 95 (19/20)93 (41/44) vs 95 (19/20)15 (7/44) vs 4 (7/20)
Park37
(2015)
Multicentre, Prospective32 (12 CDS; 20 HGS)SEMS (16) Hybrid Metal Stent (16)92 (11/12) vs 100 (20/20)92 (11/12) vs 90 (18/20)33 (4/12) vs 25 (5/20)
Artifon29
(2015)
Single Centre, RCT49 (24 CDS; 25 HGS)SEMS (49)91 (22/24) vs 96 (24/25)70 (17/24) vs 88 (22/25)13 (3/24) vs 20 (5/25)
Khashab38 (2016)Multicentre, Retrospective121 (60 CDS; 61 HGS)SEMS (109), Plastic (12)93 (56/60) vs 92 (56/61)85 (51/60) vs 82 (50/61)13 (8/60) vs 20 (12/61)
Guo39
(2016)
Single Centre, Retrospective21 (14 CDS; 7 HGS)SEMS (21)100 (14/14) vs 100 (7/7)100 (14/14) vs 100 (7/7)14 (2/14) vs 14 (1/7)
Ogura40
(2016)
Single Centre, Retrospective39 (13 CDS; 26 HGS)SEMS (39)100 (13/13) vs 100 (26/26)100 (13/13) vs 92 (24/26)46 (6/13) vs 8 (2/26)
Amano41
(2017)
Single Centre, Prospective20 (11 CDS; 9 HGS)CSEMS (20)100 (11/11) vs 100 (9/9)100 (11/11) vs 100 (9/9)18 (2/11) vs 11 (1/9)
Cho42
(2017)
Single Centre, Prospective54 (33 CDS; 21 HGS)CSEMS (54)100 (33/33) vs 100 (21/21)100 (33/33) vs 86 (18/21)15 (5/33) vs 19 (4/21)
  • CDS, choledochoduodenostomy; CSEMS, covered self-expanding metal stents; HGS, hepaticogastrostomy; RCT, randomised controlled trial; SEMS, self-expandable metal stents.