4.3 Article

Flexible bronchoscopic management of benign tracheal stenosis: long term follow-up of 115 patients

Journal

JOURNAL OF CARDIOTHORACIC SURGERY
Volume 5, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/1749-8090-5-2

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Management of benign tracheal stenosis (BTS) varies with the type and extent of the disease and influenced by the patient's age and general health status, hence we sought to investigate the long-term outcome of patients with BTS that underwent minimally invasive bronchoscopic treatment. Methods: Patients with symptomatic BTS were treated with flexible bronchoscopy therapeutic modalities that included the following: balloon dilatation, laser photo-resection, self-expanding metal stent placement, and High-dose rate endobronchial brachytherapy used in cases of refractory stent-related granulation tissue formation. Results: A total of 115 patients with BTS and various cardiac and respiratory co-morbidities with a mean age of 61 (range 40-88) were treated between January 2001 and January 2009. The underlining etiologies for BTS were post endotracheal intubation (N = 76) post-tracheostomy (N = 30), Wegener's granulomatosis (N = 2), sarcoidosis (N = 2), amyloidosis (N = 2) and idiopathic BTS (N = 3). The modalities used were: balloon dilatation and laser treatment (N = 98). Stent was placed in 33 patients of whom 28 also underwent brachytherapy. Complications were minor and mostly included granulation tissue formation. The overall success rate was 87%. Over a median follow-up of 51 months (range 10-100 months), 30 patients (26%) died, mostly due to exacerbation of their underlying conditions. Conclusions: BTS in elderly patients with co-morbidities can be safely and effectively treated by flexible bronchoscopic treatment modalities. The use of HDR brachytherapy to treat granulation tissue formation following successful airway restoration is promising.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available