A Comparison of Temporary Self-Expanding Plastic and Biodegradable Stents for Refractory Benign Esophageal Strictures

BACKGROUND & AIMS: It is a challenge to manage refractory benign esophageal strictures (RBES). We compared the efficacy and safety of self-expanding plastic stents (SEPSs) with placement of biodegradable stents for the treatment of RBES. METHODS: We studied 2 groups of consecutive patients with RBES who received temporary placement (6 weeks) of SEPSs (n = 20) or biodegradable stents (n = 18). Data were collected with respect to clinical outcome, complications, recurrent dysphagia, and reinterventions. RESULTS: SEPSs were removed in 16 (80%) patients. Stent placement was not successful in 1 patient, while stent removal was not performed in another 3 patients. Six (30%) patients with an SEPS were dysphagia-free after a median follow-up of 385 days (range, 77-924 days). Ten (50%) developed recurrent dysphagia. Major complications occurred in 2 patients (10%; 1 with hemorrhage and 1 with perforation). Six patients (33%) with a biodegradable stent were dysphagia-free after a median follow-up of 166 days (range 21-559 days) (P = .83 compared with SEPS). Twelve patients (67%) had recurrent dysphagia. Major complications occurred in 4 patients (22%; 2 with hemorrhage, 2 with severe retrosternal pain) with a biodegradable stent (P = .30 compared with SEPS). Reinterventions were less frequently indicated after biodegradeble stent than after SEPS placement (15 [mean, 0.8 +/- 0.6 per stent placed] vs 21 [mean, 1.3 +/- 0.4 per stent placed], respectively; P = .03). CONCLUSIONS: Placement of SEPSs or biodegradable stents provides long-term relief of dysphagia in 30% and 33%, respectively, of patients with RBES. Biodegradable stents require fewer procedures than SEPSs, offering an advantage. Although stent placement is a viable strategy in patients with RBES, the ideal strategy still needs to be defined.