4.6 Article

Endoscopic submucosal dissection combined with clip for closure of gastrointestinal fistulas including those refractory to previous therapy

期刊

ENDOSCOPY
卷 54, 期 7, 页码 700-705

出版社

GEORG THIEME VERLAG KG
DOI: 10.1055/a-1641-7938

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The novel FESDC strategy appears to be a safe and feasible option for the permanent endoscopic closure of gastrointestinal fistulas, with a moderate success rate in the long term, even for patients with previous failed endoscopic therapy. Further studies are needed to determine the role of this technique in the management of chronic gastrointestinal fistulas.
Background Gastrointestinal (GI) fistula is a life-threatening condition and a therapeutic challenge. Endoscopic approaches include mucosal abrasion, clip closure, or stent diversion, with moderate success rates in the long term. We assessed whether fistula endoscopic submucosal dissection with clip closure (FESDC) could lead to complete resolution of fistulas even after failure of previous endoscopic therapy. Methods Patients with GI fistulas, including those with previous failed treatment, were retrospectively included. The primary outcome was long-term (> 3 months) success of fistula healing. Secondary outcomes included technical success, safety, and factors associated with FESDC success. Results 23 patients (13 refractory 57 %) were included. Tight immediate sealing was achieved in 19 patients (83 %; 95 % confidence interval [CI] 61 %-95 %). Long-term closure was achieved in 14 patients (61 %; 95 %CI 39 %-80 %), with median follow-up of 20 months. Complications occurred in two patients (9 %). Previous local malignancy ( P = 0.08) and radiotherapy ( P = 0.047) were associated with a higher risk of failure. Conclusion This novel FESDC strategy was demonstrated to be safe and feasible for permanent endoscopic closure of GI fistulas. Further studies are warranted to determine the place of this technique in the management of chronic GI fistula.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据