Lumen-apposing Metal Stents, Fully Covered Self-expanding Metal Stents, and Biodegradable Stents in the Management of Benign of GI Strictures: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: Refractory benign gastrointestinal (GI) strictures are difficult to treat and placement of a stent is a commonly sought resort. Stents used for this purpose are fully covered self-expanding metal stent (FCSEMS), a biodegradable stent (BDS) and recently, a lumen-apposing metal stent (LAMS). There is no data comparing these stents to this end.

Methods: We conducted a comprehensive search of multiple electronic databases and conference proceedings (from inception through October 2018) to identify studies that reported on the performance of FCSEMS, BDS, and LAMS in the treatment of refractory benign GI strictures. Our goals were to evaluate the pooled rate of technical success, clinical success, and adverse events with these stents and compare the outcomes between them.

Results: A total of 31 studies were analyzed. In total, 14 (342 patients), 11 (226 patients), and 8 studies (192 patients) reported the use of FCSEMS, BDS, and LAMS, respectively. The pooled rate of technical success was 96.5% [95% confidence interval (CI): 93.5-98.1], 91.9% (95% CI: 85.6-95.6), and 97.6% (95% CI: 94.0-99.0) with FCSEMS, BDS, and LAMS respectively. No statistical significance to the difference was noted. The pooled rate of clinical success was 48.4% (95% CI: 37.1-59.8), 34.9% (95% CI: 23.6-48.1), and 78.8% (95% CI: 65.8-87.8) with FCSEMS, BDS, and LAMS, respectively. Statistical significance was noted in LAMS versus FCSEMS (P=0.001) and LAMS versus BDS (P=0.001). LAMS demonstrated statistically better outcomes in regards to stent migration and postprocedure pain when compared with FCSEMS and BDS.

Conclusion: Our study demonstrates that LAMS gives better clinical outcomes in the treatment of refractory benign GI strictures when compared with FCSEMS and BDS. Variability in the site, as well as the length of stricture, indirect comparison, and heterogeneity, were the limitations of our study.