A Comparison of the Temporary Placement of 3 Different Self-expanding Stents for the Treatment of Refractory Benign Esophageal Strictures: a Prospective Multicentre Study
Overview
Authors
Affiliations
Background: Refractory benign esophageal strictures (RBESs) have been treated with the temporary placement of different self-expanding stents with conflicting results. We compared the clinical effectiveness of 3 types of stents: self-expanding plastic stents (SEPSs), biodegradable stents, and fully covered self-expanding metal stents (FCSEMSs), for the treatment of RBES.
Methods: This study prospectively evaluated 3 groups of 30 consecutive patients with RBESs who underwent temporary placement of either SEPSs (12 weeks, n = 10), biodegradable stents (n = 10) or FCSEMSs (12 weeks, n = 10). Data were collected to analyze the technical success and clinical outcome of the stents as evaluated by recurrent dysphagia, complications and reinterventions.
Results: Stent implantation was technically successful in all patients. Migration occurred in 11 patients: 6 (60%) in the SEPS group, 2 (20%) in the biodegradable group and 3 (30%) in the FCSEMS group (P = 0.16). A total of 8/30 patients (26.6%) were dysphagia-free after the end of follow-up: 1 (10%) in the SEPS group, 3 (30%) in the biodegradable group and 4 (40%) in the FCSEMS group (P = 0.27). More reinterventions were required in the SEPS group (n = 24) than in the biodegradable group (n = 13) or the FCSEMS group (n = 13) (P = 0.24). Multivariate analysis showed that stricture length was significantly associated with higher recurrence rates after temporary stent placement (HR = 1.37; 95% CI = 1.08-1.75; P = 0.011).
Conclusions: Temporary placement of a biodegradable stent or of a FCSEMS in patients with RBES may lead to long-term relief of dysphagia in 30 and 40% of patients, respectively. The use of SEPSs seems least preferable, as they are associated with frequent stent migration, more reinterventions and few cases of long-term improvement. Additionally, longer strictures were associated with a higher risk of recurrence.
Best Practices in Esophageal, Gastroduodenal, and Colonic Stenting.
Medas R, Ferreira-Silva J, Girotra M, Barakat M, Tabibian J, Rodrigues-Pinto E GE Port J Gastroenterol. 2023; 30(Suppl 1):19-34.
PMID: 37818397 PMC: 10561327. DOI: 10.1159/000527202.
Kano Y, Kadota T, Inaba A, Sunakawa H, Takashima K, Nakajo K Endosc Int Open. 2023; 11(3):E230-E236.
PMID: 36910847 PMC: 9995178. DOI: 10.1055/a-2005-7678.
Kailla E, Rezai F, Kansci A, Akande O, Gossage J Surg Endosc. 2022; 37(4):2476-2484.
PMID: 36481820 PMC: 10082093. DOI: 10.1007/s00464-022-09767-w.
Kim G, Shin J, Zeng C, Park J Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2022; 45(4):425-437.
PMID: 35166883 DOI: 10.1007/s00270-022-03067-5.
Futuristic Developments and Applications in Endoluminal Stenting.
Ferreira-Silva J, Medas R, Girotra M, Barakat M, Tabibian J, Rodrigues-Pinto E Gastroenterol Res Pract. 2022; 2022:6774925.
PMID: 35069729 PMC: 8767390. DOI: 10.1155/2022/6774925.