Esophageal stents for leaks and perforations

Patient-Reported Long-Term Outcome is Superior After Treatment with Self-Expanding Metallic Stents in Esophageal Perforations

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Esophageal perforations are life threatening. Since the 1990s, placing of covered esophageal stents has become an alternative to surgery. Theoretically, this minimally invasive approach has several benefits; however, little data are available on long-term outcome in these patients. We aimed to evaluate how patient-reported outcome differed between full surgery and placement of self-expanding metallic stents when treating primary benign esophageal perforations.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Of 48 patients treated at our hospital in 2000-2015, 23 were alive and asked to answer three questionnaires. We used a short clinical questionnaire, the QLQ-OG25 from the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer and a simplified quality-of-life instrument, the Check Your Health. Non-parametric statistics were used to evaluate differences between the two groups.

RESULTS

In all, 20 (87%) individuals (13 men, 64 years of age) responded. At survey, surgical patients had lost 13 kg of initial weight, compared to no weight loss in the self-expanding metallic stents group (p = 0.01). This involuntary weight loss worried patients according to the QLQ-OG25; otherwise patient-experience measures did not differ between groups. For quality of life, surgical patients scored significantly lower physical health, emotional well-being, social functioning, and overall quality of life after treatment, but after stenting no differences were seen.

CONCLUSIONS

In contrast to stenting, surgical treatment was associated with involuntary, and worrisome, weight loss as well as reduced quality of life. We therefore believe that self-expanding metallic stents should be used when possible in treating benign esophageal perforations.

Outcomes following the main treatment options in patients with a leaking esophagus: a systematic literature review

Leakage from the esophagus and gastroesophageal junction can be lethal due to uncontrolled contamination of the mediastinum. The most predominant risk factors for the subsequent clinical outcome are the patients' delay as well as the delay of diagnosis. Two major therapeutic concepts have been advocated: either prompt closure of the leakage by insertion of a self-expandable metal stent (SEMS) or more traditionally, surgical exploration. The objective of this review is to carefully scrutinize the recent literature and assess the outcomes of these two therapeutic alternatives in the management of iatrogenic perforation-spontaneous esophageal rupture as separated from those with anastomotic leak. A systematic web-based search using PubMed and the Cochrane Library was performed, reviewing literature published between January 2005 and December 2015. Eligible studies included all studies that presented data on the outcome of SEMS or surgical exploration in case of esophageal leak (including >3 patients). Only patients older than 15 years of age by the time of admission were included. Articles in other languages but English were excluded. Treatment failure was defined as a need for change in therapeutic strategy due to uncontrolled sepsis and mediastinitis, which usually meant rescue esophagectomy with end esophagostomy, death occurring as a consequence of the leakage or development of an esophagorespiratory fistula and/or other serious life threatening complications. Accordingly, the corresponding success rate is composed of cases where none of the failures above occurred. Regarding SEMS treatment, 201 articles were found, of which 48 were deemed relevant and of these, 17 articles were further analyzed. As for surgical management, 785 articles were retrieved, of which 82 were considered relevant, and 17 were included in the final analysis. It was not possible to specifically extract detailed clinical outcomes in sufficient numbers, when we tried to separately analyze the data in relation to the cause of the leakage: i.e. iatrogenic perforation-spontaneous esophageal rupture and anastomotic leak. As for SEMS treatment, originally 154 reports focused on iatrogenic perforation, 116 focused on spontaneous ruptures, and only four described the outcome following trauma and foreign body management. Only five studies used a prospective protocol to assess treatment efficacy. Regarding a leaking anastomosis, 80 reports contained information about the outcome after treatment of esophagogastrostomies and 35 reported the clinical course after an esophagojejunostomy. An overall success rate of 88% was reported among the 371 SEMS-treated patients, where adequate data were available, with a reported in hospital mortality amounting to 7.5%. Regarding the surgical exploration strategy, the vast majority of patients had an attempt to repair the defect by direct or enforced suturing. This surgical approach also included procedures such as patching with pleura or with a diaphragmatic flap. The overall reported success rate was 83% (305/368) and the in-hospital mortality was 17% (61/368). The current literature suggests that a SEMS-based therapy can be successfully applied as an alternative therapeutic strategy in esophageal perforation rupture.

Endoscopic Closure for Full-Thickness Gastrointestinal Defects: Available Applications and Emerging Innovations

Full-thickness gastrointestinal defects such as perforation, anastomotic leak, and fistula are severe conditions caused by various types of pathologies. They are more likely to require intensive care and a long hospital stay and have high rates of morbidity and mortality. After intentional full-thickness opening of hollow organs for natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery, safe and secure closure is urgently required. The currently available advanced endoscopic closing techniques have a major role in the treatment of full-thickness gastrointestinal defects. Appropriate usage of these techniques requires taking into account their advantages and limitations during practical application. We reviewed the available endoscopic modalities, including endoscopic clips, stents, vacuum-assisted closure, gap filling, and suturing devices, discussed their advantages and limitations when treating full-thickness gastrointestinal defects, and explored emerging innovations, including a novel endoluminal surgical platform for versatile suturing and a cell-laden scaffold for effective gap filling. Although these emerging technologies still require further pre-clinical and clinical trials to assess their feasibility and efficacy, the available modalities may be replaced and refined by these new techniques in the near future.

Comprehensive management of full-thickness luminal defects: The next frontier of gastrointestinal endoscopy

Full thickness gastrointestinal defects such as perforations, leaks, and fistulae are a relatively common result of many of the endoscopic and surgical procedures performed in modern health care. As the number of these procedures increases, so too will the number of resultant defects. Historically, these were all treated by open surgical means with the associated morbidity and mortality. With the recent advent of advanced endoscopic techniques, these defects can be treated definitively while avoiding an open surgical procedure. Here we explore the various techniques and tools that are currently available for the treatment of gastrointestinal defects including through the scope clips, endoscopic suturing devices, over the scope clips, sealants, endoluminal stents, endoscopic suction devices, and fistula plugs. As fistulae represent the most recalcitrant of defects, we focus this editorial on a multimodal approach of treatment. This includes optimization of nutrition, treatment of infection, ablation of tracts, removal of foreign bodies, and treatment of distal obstructions. We believe that by addressing all of these factors at the time of attempted closure, the patient is optimized and has the best chance at long-term closure. However, even with all of these factors addressed, failure does occur and in those cases, endoscopic therapies may still play a role in that they allow the patient to avoid a definitive surgical therapy for a time while nutrition is optimized, and infections are addressed.

Role of endoscopic stents and selective minimal access drainage in oesophageal leaks: feasibility and outcome

BACKGROUND

Leaks following oesophageal surgery are considered to be amongst the most dreaded complications and contributory to postoperative mortality. Controversies still exist regarding the best option for the management of oesophageal leaks due to lack of standardized treatment protocols. This study was designed to analyse the feasibility outcome and complications associated with placement of removable, fully covered, self-expanding metallic stents for oesophageal leaks with concomitant minimally invasive drainage when appropriate.

METHODS

The study group included 32 patients from a prospectively maintained database of oesophageal leaks, with the majority being anastomotic leaks after minimally invasive oesophagectomy (n = 28), followed by laparoscopic cardiomyotomy (n = 3) and extended total gastrectomy (n = 1). The procedures took place between March 2007 and April 2013.

RESULTS

Most patients had an intrathoracic leak (n = 22), with a mean time to detection of the leak following surgery of 7.50 days (SD = 2.23). Subsequent to endoscopic stenting, enteral feeding via a nasojejunal tube was started on the second day and oral feeding was delayed until the 14th day (n = 31). Six patients underwent thoracoscopic (n = 5) or laparoscopic drainage (n = 1) along with stenting for significant mediastinal and intra-abdominal contamination. The stent migration rate of our study was 8.54%. The overall success in terms of preventing mortality was 96%.

CONCLUSION

Endoscopic stenting should be considered a primary option for managing oesophageal leaks. Delayed oral intake may reduce the incidence of stent migration. Larger stents (bariatric or colorectal stents) serve as a useful option in case of migrated stents. Combined minimally invasive procedures can be safely adapted in appropriate clinical circumstances and may contribute to better outcomes.

Endoscopic treatment of iatrogenic gastrointestinal perforations: an overview

In the past, the treatment of iatrogenic gastrointestinal perforations was limited to surgical management or to medical observation. Natural Orifice Transluminal Endoscopic Surgery (NOTES) has paved the way towards the development of reliable endoscopic closure techniques, which can be applicable in accidental perforations of the gastrointestinal tract. When endoscopic treatment is feasible, hemoclips are preferred in smaller perforations, while over-the-scope-clips or a combination of hemoclips, endoloops, and glue are used in larger ones. Endoscopic stitching is rarely utilized, and endoscopic stapling has been practically abandoned. The use of self-expandable covered stents can be considered in the esophagus and duodenum. Broad spectrum antibiotics are recommended in most cases. Clinical follow-up in a medico-surgical unit is mandatory and surgical intervention should not be delayed more than 24h if clinical or biological worsening occurs. Imaging with oral contrast medium is advisable before resumption of oral feeding in the case of large perforations.