4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

Self-expanding metal stents for complicated and recurrent esophagogastric cancer

Journal

GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY
Volume 54, Issue 5, Pages 579-586

Publisher

MOSBY, INC
DOI: 10.1067/mge.2001.118716

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background. Fewer complications are encountered with the use of self-expanding metal stents compared with semirigid prostheses in the palliation of patients with malignant esophagogastric obstructions. Metal stents can also be used to treat patients with complicated and/or recurrent esophagogastric carcinoma. Methods: Covered metal stents were placed in 57 patients for the following reasons: esophagorespiratory fistula (n = 16), recurrent carcinoma in a gastric tube interposition (n = 21), recurrent carcinoma after partial (n = 4) or total (n = 6) gastrectomy, or a carcinoma near the upper esophageal sphincter (n = 10). Results: The procedure was technically successful in 55 of 57 (96%) patients. Dysphagia score improved from a mean of 3.6 to 1.6 (p < 0.001). Major complications occurred in 13 (23%) patients. In all cases, esophagorespiratory fistulas were occluded. Tumor recurred in 5 of 16 patients with a fistula, 8 of 21 patients after gastric tube interposition, 3 of 10 patients after gastrectomy, and 2 of 10 patients with a tumor immediately distal to the upper esophageal sphincter. Median survival was 61 days. Prior radiation, chemotherapy, or both increased the risk of specific stent-related complications in relation to the (neo)esophagus (6 of 16 [38%] versus 4 of 41 [10%]: odds ratio, 5.5: 95% Cl [1.3, 24], p = 0.018). Conclusions. Self-expanding metal stents are effective and relatively safe for palliation of patients with malignancy and dysphagia caused by fistula formation, postoperative recurrence, and tumors near the upper esophageal sphincter. Placement should be considered at an early stage in these conditions.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available