TY - JOUR
T1 - Covered nitinol stents for the treatment of esophageal strictures and leaks
AU - Bona, Davide
AU - Laface, Letizia
AU - Bonavina, Luigi
AU - Abate, Emmanuele
AU - Schaffer, Moshe
AU - Ugenti, Ippazio
AU - Siboni, Stefano
AU - Carrinola, Rosaria
PY - 2010/5/14
Y1 - 2010/5/14
N2 - AIM: To compare 2 different types of covered esophageal nitinol stents (Ultraflex and Choostent) in terms of efficacy, complications, and long-term outcome. METHODS: A retrospective review of a consecutive series of 65 patients who underwent endoscopic placement of an Ultraflex stent (n = 33) or a Choostent (n = 32) from June 2001 to October 2009 was conducted. RESULTS: Stent placement was successful in all patients without hospital mortality. No significant differences in patient discomfort and complications were observed between the Ultraflex stent and Choostent groups. The median follow-up time was 6 mo (interquartile range 3-16 mo). Endoscopic reintervention was required in 9 patients (14%) because of stent migration or food obstruction. No significant difference in the rate of reintervention between the 2 groups was observed (P = 0.8). The mean dysphagia score 1 mo after stent placement was 1.9 ± 0.3 for the Ultraflex stent and 2.1 ± 0.4 for the Choostent (P = 0.6). At 1-mo follow-up endoscopy, the cover membrane of the stent appeared to be damaged more frequently in the Choostent group (P = 0.34). Removal of the Choostent was possible up to 8 wk without difficulty. CONCLUSION: Ultraflex and Choostent proved to be equally reliable for palliation of dysphagia and leaks. Removal of the Choostent was easy and safe under mild sedation.
AB - AIM: To compare 2 different types of covered esophageal nitinol stents (Ultraflex and Choostent) in terms of efficacy, complications, and long-term outcome. METHODS: A retrospective review of a consecutive series of 65 patients who underwent endoscopic placement of an Ultraflex stent (n = 33) or a Choostent (n = 32) from June 2001 to October 2009 was conducted. RESULTS: Stent placement was successful in all patients without hospital mortality. No significant differences in patient discomfort and complications were observed between the Ultraflex stent and Choostent groups. The median follow-up time was 6 mo (interquartile range 3-16 mo). Endoscopic reintervention was required in 9 patients (14%) because of stent migration or food obstruction. No significant difference in the rate of reintervention between the 2 groups was observed (P = 0.8). The mean dysphagia score 1 mo after stent placement was 1.9 ± 0.3 for the Ultraflex stent and 2.1 ± 0.4 for the Choostent (P = 0.6). At 1-mo follow-up endoscopy, the cover membrane of the stent appeared to be damaged more frequently in the Choostent group (P = 0.34). Removal of the Choostent was possible up to 8 wk without difficulty. CONCLUSION: Ultraflex and Choostent proved to be equally reliable for palliation of dysphagia and leaks. Removal of the Choostent was easy and safe under mild sedation.
KW - Dysphagia
KW - Endoscopy
KW - Esophageal neoplasms
KW - Neoadjuvant therapy
KW - Palliative care
KW - Self-expanding metal stents
KW - Stricture
KW - Surgical anastomosis
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=77952607991&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=77952607991&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.3748/wjg.v16.i18.2260
DO - 10.3748/wjg.v16.i18.2260
M3 - Article
C2 - 20458763
AN - SCOPUS:77952607991
VL - 16
SP - 2260
EP - 2264
JO - World Journal of Gastroenterology
JF - World Journal of Gastroenterology
SN - 1007-9327
IS - 18
ER -