Esophageal Stenting With Sutures: Time to Redefine Our Standards?

Success rates of fixation techniques on prevention of esophageal stent migration: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

 Esophageal stenting is an important intervention for managing malignant and benign dysphagia, with stent migration representing a common drawback. This systematic review with meta-analysis aimed to assess the benefit of stent fixation over nonfixation.

METHODS

 A systematic search was performed in MEDLINE, Cochrane, Scopus, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases until January 2023 for comparative studies evaluating the migration rates of esophageal stents with versus without (control) fixation. The primary outcome was migration rate. Secondary outcomes included adverse event rate. A subgroup analysis stratified the results based on different fixation techniques: suturing, over-the-scope (OTS) clipping, and through-the-scope (TTS) clipping. Meta-analysis was based on a random effects model and the results were reported as odds ratios (ORs) with 95 %CIs.

RESULTS

 10 studies (1014 patients) were included. The rate of stent migration was significantly lower after fixation (OR 0.20, 95 %CI 0.11-0.37; I2  = 59 %, P = 0.01). The adverse event rate was similar between fixation and control groups (OR 0.65, 95 %CI 0.28-1.52; I2  = 55 %, P = 0.06). In the subgroup analysis, all fixation techniques remained superior to nonfixation of stents (suturing OR 0.23, 95 %CI 0.10-0.53; OTS clips OR 0.31, 95 %CI 0.17-0.58; TTS clips OR 0.10, 95 %CI 0.03-0.38); however, only the OTS and TTS clip groups achieved nonsignificant heterogeneity (I2  = 0 %, P = 0.67 and P = 0.73, respectively). No difference between techniques was recorded for migration rates.

CONCLUSION

 Esophageal stent fixation was associated with significantly lower migration rates compared with nonfixation of stents, regardless of fixation technique and stenting indication.

Best Practices in Esophageal, Gastroduodenal, and Colonic Stenting

Endoscopic stenting is an area of endoscopy that has witnessed noteworthy advancements over the last decade, resulting in evolving clinical practices among gastroenterologists around the world. Indications for endoscopic stenting have progressively expanded, becoming a frequent part of the management algorithm for various benign and malignant conditions of the gastrointestinal tract, from esophagus to rectum. In addition to expanded indications, continuous technological enhancements and development of novel endoscopic stents have resulted in an increased success of these approaches and, in some cases, allowed new applications. This review aimed to summarize best practices in esophageal, gastroduodenal, and colonic stenting.

The Use of Esophageal Stents in the Management of Postoperative Fistulas-Current Status, Clinical Outcomes and Perspectives-Review

Esophageal fistula remains one of the main postoperative complications, with the treatment often requiring the use of stents. This article reviews the updates on the use of endoscopic stents for the treatment of postoperative esophageal leakage in terms of indications, types of stents used, efficiency, specific complications and perspectives.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We searched the PubMed and MEDLINE databases for the keywords postoperative esophageal anastomotic leak and postoperative esophageal anastomotic leak stent, and retrieved relevant papers published until December 2022.

RESULTS

The endoscopic discovery of the fistula is usually followed by the insertion of a fully covered esophageal stent. It has an efficiency of more than 60% in closing the fistula, and the failure is related to the delayed application of the method, a situation more suitable for endo vac therapy. The most common complication is migration, but life-threatening complications have also been described. The combination of the advantages of endoscopic stents and vacuum therapy is probably found in the emerging VACstent procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the competing approaches give promising results, this method has a well-defined place in the treatment of esophageal fistulas, and it is probably necessary to refine the indications for each individual procedure.

OverStitch Sx Endoscopic suturing system in minimally invasive endoscopic procedures: overview of its safety and efficacy and comparison to oversticthTM

INTRODUCTION

OverStitch endoscopic suturing enables advanced closure by tissue approximation via endoscopically placed sutures with the ability to customize suture patterns. Newer OverStitch generation also known as OverStitch Sx overcame the limitation of the previous generation and is compatible with 20 single channel scopes over four platforms with greater maneuverability and visibility.

AREAS COVERED

In this article we will focus on the differences between three generations of OverStitch. In addition, we will review existing literature on the efficacy of OverStitch in the management of full thickness defect closure, fistula and leaks repair, stent fixation, and bariatric surgeries along with its complications and limitations.

EXPERT OPINION

Assembling overstitch takes less than five minutes and the correct sequence of system assembly is the key for a successful procedure. Transition from the second-generation OverStitch to OverStitch Sx may require three to five cases for learning curve.

Transgastric Drainage for Esophageal Injuries: A Dynamic Strategy for a Heterogenous Patient Cohort

BACKGROUND

Esophageal injury is a rare but potentially lethal surgical emergency. It is associated with significant morbidity and mortality because of mediastinal contamination and difficulty of access. Surgery in such septic patients exacts a heavy physiological price, mandating consideration of more conservative measures. We review our experience with transgastric drainage for esophageal perforation and high-risk anastomotic dehiscence.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A select cohort of patients presenting with esophageal perforation, or complex anastomotic leaks, over 10 years were considered for transgastric drainage (TGD). A modified 36F chest drainage tube was inserted by percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy technique, either endoscopically or at open surgery, and a negative pressure (-10 cmH2O) was applied until the leak had sealed. Endpoints include, length of stay, restoration of gastrointestinal tract continuity and mortality.

RESULTS

Of 14 patients treated, 10 had perforations and 4 had complex anastomotic leaks. Ten patients had drainage alone, while 4 required concomitant operative intervention. The median duration of drain insertion for those treated with TGD alone was 19.5 days. Complete restoration of gastrointestinal tract continuity was achieved in all patients. There was no procedure-related morbidity or mortality.

CONCLUSION

These results show that TGD is a safe and effective management strategy. We advocate its use alone or as an adjunct to operative treatment for esophageal perforation or anastomotic leaks. This is the first report of completely endoscopic TGD for esophageal perforation.

Valuing innovative endoscopic techniques: endoscopic suturing to prevent stent migration for benign esophageal disease

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Reimbursement often presents a significant barrier to widespread adoption of innovative endoscopic devices. We aimed to determine the value (defined as cost savings to a payer) of endoscopic suturing devices in preventing the migration of esophageal stents placed for benign esophageal diseases.

METHODS

A decision-analytic model was constructed from a payer perspective evaluating fully covered metal stent placement for benign esophageal diseases (fistula, leak, perforation, or stricture) in a hospital outpatient setting. The model compared 2 strategies: endoscopic suturing to anchor the stent or no suture. Health care outcomes and costs were derived from published systematic reviews and national databases (U.S. Food and Drug Administration Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience [MAUDE] for safety data; 2018 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule and Provider Utilization and Payment Data databases for reimbursement data).

RESULTS

From a payer perspective, reimbursement for care increased by US$1487.98 without endoscopic suturing per patient, compared with US$621.06 with endoscopic suturing, to cover the risk of stent migration in addition to usual professional and facility reimbursement for stent placement. Thus, an average cost saving of US$866.92 per patient was achieved with endoscopic suturing to reduce stent migration risks. Cost savings associated with suturing ranged from US$147.48 to US$1586.36 per patient, based on the indication for the procedure in sensitivity analysis. Cost savings increased with higher rates of technical success in suture placement.

CONCLUSIONS

Creating a defined reimbursement pathway for endoscopic suture fixation of a stent for the treatment of benign esophageal diseases appears to be justified from a payer perspective.

A phase III, multicenter, prospective, single-blinded, noninferiority, randomized controlled trial on the performance of a novel esophageal stent with an antireflux valve (with video)

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Self-expanding metal stents (SEMSs) when deployed across the gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) can lead to reflux with risks of aspiration. A SEMS with a tricuspid antireflux valve (SEMS-V) was designed to address this issue. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of this stent.

METHODS

A phase III, multicenter, prospective, noninferiority, randomized controlled trial was conducted on patients with malignant dysphagia requiring SEMSs to be placed across the GEJ. Patients were randomized to receive SEMSs with no valve (SEMS-NV) or SEMS-V. Postdeployment dysphagia score at 2 weeks and Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease-Health Related Quality of Life (GERD-HRQL) questionnaire score at 4 weeks were measured. Patients were followed for 24 weeks.

RESULTS

Sixty patients were randomized (SEMS-NV: 30 patients, mean age 67 ± 13 years; SEMS-V: 30 patients, mean age 65 ± 12 years). Baseline dysphagia scores (SEMS-NV, 2.5 ± .8; SEMS-V, 2.5 ± .8) and GERD-HRQL scores (SEMS-NV, 11.1 ± 8.2; SEMS-V, 12.8 ± 8.3) were similar. All SEMSs were successfully deployed. A similar proportion of patients in both arms improved from advanced dysphagia to moderate to no dysphagia (SEMS-NV, 71%; SEMS-V, 74%; 95% confidence interval, 1.93 [-17.8 to 21.7]). The dysphagia scores were also similar across all follow-up time points. Mean GERD-HRQL scores improved by 7.4 ± 10.2 points in the SEMS-V arm and by 5.2 ± 8.3 in the SEMS-NV group (P = .96). The GERD-HRQL scores were similar across all follow-up time points. Aspiration pneumonia occurred in 3.3% in the SEMS-NV arm and 6.9% in the SEMS-V arm (P = .61). Migration rates were similar (SEMS-NV, 33%; SEMS-V, 48%; P = .29). Two SEMS-V spontaneously fractured. There was no perforation, food impaction, or stent-related death in either group.

CONCLUSIONS

The SEMS-V was equally effective in relieving dysphagia as compared with the SEMS-NV. Presence of the valve did not increase the risks of adverse events. GERD symptom scores were similar between the 2 stents, implying either that the valve was not effective or that all patients on proton pump inhibitors could have masked the symptoms of GERD. Studies with objective evaluations such as fluoroscopy and/or pH/impedance are recommended. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT02159898.).

Recent advancements in the minimally invasive management of esophageal perforation, leaks, and fistulae

INTRODUCTION

Historically, the gold standard management of esophageal perforations, leaks, and fistulae has been traditional open surgery, but it is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Minimally invasive approaches offer alternatives to surgery in treating hemodynamically stable patients with such defects. In this review article, we will discuss the recent advancements in the minimally invasive management of esophageal perforations, leaks, and fistulas.

AREAS COVERED

This review includes information from case reports, case series, and clinical trials on minimally invasive management of esophageal perforations, leaks, and fistulas. The focus is on the devices, outcomes, and application of the technology.

EXPERT COMMENTARY

Minimally invasive treatment represents significant progress in the management of esophageal perforations, leaks, and fistulas. Based on current evidence, it seems safe and effective but it is evolving and more studies are needed to help draw definitive conclusions.

Esophageal Metallic-Stent Migration: a Rare Cause of Anal Pain in a Patient with Gastric Cancer

Stents are a great development for esophageal fistula treatment; however, stent migration is a frequent complication. A stent migration that caused anal pain is presented. A 79-year-old man with poorly differentiated gastric carcinoma was submitted to a total gastrectomy with a Roux-en-Y esophagojejunostomy. The patient developed an anastomosis leakage 3 months after surgery; a fixed metallic stent was used as treatment with good evolution. Five months after the stent (and 8 months after gastrectomy), the patient returned to the emergency department with acute incapacitating anal pain; the pain was caused by the migrated stent. Esophageal stent migration is frequent; however, rarely, metallic stent migration may cause anal pain.

Fully-covered metal stents with endoscopic suturing vs. partially-covered metal stents for benign upper gastrointestinal diseases: a comparative study

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

Self-expandable metallic stents (SEMS) have been increasingly used in benign conditions (e. g. strictures, fistulas, leaks, and perforations). Fully covered SEMS (FSEMS) were introduced to avoid undesirable consequences of partially covered SEMS (PSEMS), but come with higher risk of stent migration. Endoscopic suturing (ES) for stent fixation has been shown to reduce migration of FSEMS. Our aim was to compare the outcomes of FSEMS with ES (FS/ES) versus PSEMS in patients with benign upper gastrointestinal conditions.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We retrospectively identified all patients who underwent stent placement for benign gastrointestinal conditions at seven US tertiary-care centers. Patients were divided into two groups: FSEMS with ES (FS/ES group) and PSEMS (PSEMS group). Clinical outcomes between the two groups were compared.

RESULTS

A total of 74 (FS/ES 46, PSEMS 28) patients were included. On multivariable analysis, there was no significant difference in rate of stent migration between FS/ES (43 %) and PSEMS (15 %) (adjusted odds ratio 0.56; 95 % CI 0.15 - 2.00). Clinical success was similar [68 % vs. 64 %; P  = 0.81]. Rate of adverse events (AEs) was higher in PSEMS group [13 (46 %) vs. 10 (21 %); P  = 0.03). Difficult stent removal was higher in the PSEMS group (n = 5;17 %) vs. 0 % in the FS/ES group; P  = 0.005.

CONCLUSIONS

The proportion of stent migration of FS/ES and PSEMS are similar. Rates of other stent-related AEs were higher in the PSEMS group. PSEMS was associated with tissue ingrowth or overgrowth leading to difficult stent removal, and secondary stricture formation. Thus, FSEMS with ES for stent fixation may be the preferred modality over PSEMS for the treatment of benign upper gastrointestinal conditions.

Lumen-apposing metal stents for benign gastrointestinal tract strictures: An international multicenter experience

AIM

To investigate technical feasibility, outcomes and adverse events of the lumen-apposing metal stent (LAMS) for benign gastrointestinal (GI) tract strictures.

METHODS

Between July 2015 and January 2017, patients undergoing treatment by LAMS for benign GI strictures at three tertiary referral centers were included in this study. Primary outcomes included technical success, short-term clinical success, long-term clinical success, and adverse events. Short-term clinical success was defined as symptom resolution at 30 d after stent placement. Long-term clinical success was defined by symptom resolution at 60 d in patients who continued to have indwelling stent, or continued symptom resolution at 30 d after elective stent removal.

RESULTS

A total of 21 patients (mean age 62.6 years, 47.6% males) underwent placement of LAMS for benign GI strictures. A 15 mm × 10 mm LAMS was placed in 16 patients, a 10 mm × 10 mm LAMS was placed in 2 patients, and a 16 mm × 30 mm LAMS was placed in 3 patients. Technical success was obtained in all cases. Short-term clinical success was achieved in 19 out of 21 cases (90.5%), and long-term clinical success was achieved in 12 out of 18 (66.7%). Mean (range) stent indwell time was 107.2 (28-370) d. After a mean (range) dwell time of 104.3 (28-306) d, 9 LAMSs were removed due to the following complications: ulceration at stent site (n = 1), angulation (n = 2), migration (n = 4) and stricture overgrowth (n = 2). Migration occurred in 4 cases (19.0%), and it was associated with stricture resolution in one case. Median (range) follow-up period was 119 (31-422) d.

CONCLUSION

Utilization of LAMS for benign strictures has shown to be technically feasible and safe, but adverse events highlight the need for further study of its indications.

Endoscopic suturing of esophageal fully covered self-expanding metal stents reduces rates of stent migration

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Endoscopic suturing of fully covered self-expanding metal stents (FC-SEMSs) may prevent migration. The aim of this study was to compare rates of migration between sutured FC-SEMSs (S-FCSEMSs), unsecured FC-SEMSs, and partially covered SEMSs (PC-SEMSs) placed for benign esophageal leaks and strictures.

METHODS

In a retrospective, single-center, cohort study, rates of migration for S-FCSEMSs, FC-SEMSs, and PC-SEMSs were assessed in patients with at least 1 month of follow-up or experiencing clinically significant stent migration (CSSM) any time after placement. CSSM was defined as proximal or distal displacement of the stent by ≥2 cm or passage into the stomach plus the recurrence of pre-SEMS symptoms or signs. A multivariable analysis was done to identify additional risk factors for stent migration.

RESULTS

A total of 184 SEMSs were placed in 101 patients, including 32 S-FCSEMSs in 25 patients, 114 FC-SEMSs in 59 patients, and 38 PC-SEMSs in 30 patients. CSSM occurred with 56 of 184 stents (30.4%) in 36 of 101 patients (35.6%), including 3 of 32 (9.4%) S-FCSEMSs, 45 of 114 (39.5%) FC-SEMSs, and 8 of 38 (21.1%) PC-SEMSs (P = .005). Migration was less likely for S-FCSEMSs than for FC-SEMSs (9.4% vs 39.5%; P = .01) but not between S-FCSEMSs and PC-SEMSs (9.4% vs 21.1%; P = .07) or between FC-SEMSs and PC-SEMSs (39.5% vs 21.1%; P = .38). Previous stent migration (odds ratio [OR], 3.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.88-8.19; P = .01) and previous esophageal surgery (OR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.16-0.67; P = .002) were associated with increased and decreased risk of CSSM, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopic suturing of FC-SEMSs for benign esophageal disease reduces CSSM compared with unsecured FC-SEMSs but not PC-SEMSs. Patients with previous stent migration may benefit from prophylactic suturing of FC-SEMSs.

Predictive Factors for the Migration of Endoscopic Self-Expanding Metal Stents Placed in the Foregut

BACKGROUND

With recent advancements in endoscopy, self-expandable metal stents (SEMS) have been used to treat gastrointestinal leaks, perforations, and strictures. Stent migration frequently complicates management and often requires additional treatments to reach resolution. Our study aimed to determine predictive factors for stent migration.

METHODS

Consecutive procedures involving SEMS placed with and without fixation after upper gastrointestinal surgery between 2009 and 2014 were retrospectively reviewed. Demographic, surgical history, rate of stent migration, and stent characteristic data were collected. Rates of stent migration were compared.

RESULTS

We reviewed 214 consecutive procedures involving stents placed in the foregut. Median duration of stent placement was 4.0 ± 10.3 weeks. Forty-three (20%) stents migrated after placement. Of those, 27 (63%) required stent replacement. Eleven (5%) procedures utilized stent fixation and 203 (95%) did not. Fixation techniques included endoscopic clips (9%), endoscopic sutures (73%), and transnasal sutures (18%). Stent migration rate was not different between those with and those without fixation ( P = .2). Rate of migration was significantly higher in procedures involving fully covered stents ( P < .001). Migration occurred after esophagectomy and gastric bypass ( P < .001 and P < .05, respectively) and in patients with diabetes ( P < .01).

CONCLUSIONS

A challenge with SEMS use is stent migration. Diabetes and using fully covered stents were associated with migration as were SEMS used to treat complications of esophagectomy and gastric bypass. Stent fixation was not associated with the prevention of stent migration. No pattern was found that favors an approach to reduce stent migration.

Endoscopic stent suture fixation for prevention of esophageal stent migration during prolonged dilatation for achalasia treatment

The aim of this study is to compare endoscopic stent suture fixation with endoscopic clip attachment or the use of partially covered stents (PCS) regarding their capability to prevent stent migration during prolonged dilatation in achalasia. Large-diameter self-expanding metal stents (30 mm × 80 mm) were placed across the gastroesophageal junction in 11 patients with achalasia. Stent removal was scheduled after 4 to 7 days. To prevent stent dislocation, endoscopic clip attachment, endoscopic stent suture fixation, or PCS were used. The Eckardt score was evaluated before and 6 months after prolonged dilatation. After endoscopic stent suture fixation, no (0/4) sutured stent migrated. When endoscopic clips were used, 80% (4/5) clipped stents migrated (p = 0.02). Of two PCS (n = 2), one migrated and one became embedded leading to difficult stent removal. Technical adverse events were not seen in endoscopic stent suture fixation but were significantly correlated with the use of clips or PCS (r = 0.828, p = 0.02). Overall, 72% of patients were in remission regarding their achalasia symptoms 6 months after prolonged dilatation. Endoscopic suture fixation of esophageal stents but not clip attachment appears to be the best method of preventing early migration of esophageal stents placed at difficult locations such as at the naive gastroesophageal junction.

Endoluminal solutions to bariatric surgery complications: A review with a focus on technical aspects and results

Obesity is a growing problem in developed countries, and surgery is the most effective treatment in terms of weight loss and improving medical comorbidity in a high proportion of obese patients. Despite the advances in surgical techniques, some patients still develop acute and late postoperative complications, and an endoscopic evaluation is often required for diagnosis. Moreover, the high morbidity related to surgical reintervention, the important enhancement of endoscopic procedures and technological innovations introduced in endoscopic equipment have made the endoscopic approach a minimally-invasive alternative to surgery, and, in many cases, a suitable first-line treatment of bariatric surgery complications. There is now evidence in the literature supporting endoscopic management for some of these complications, such as gastrointestinal bleeding, stomal and marginal ulcers, stomal stenosis, leaks and fistulas or pancreatobiliary disorders. However, endoscopic treatment in this setting is not standardized, and there is no consensus on its optimal timing. In this article, we aim to analyze the secondary complications of the most expanded techniques of bariatric surgery with special emphasis on those where more solid evidence exists in favor of the endoscopic treatment. Based on a thorough review of the literature, we evaluated the performance and safety of different endoscopic options for every type of complication, highlighting the most recent innovations and including comparative data with surgical alternatives whenever feasible.

Endoscopic suture fixation is associated with reduced migration of esophageal fully covered self-expandable metal stents (FCSEMS)

BACKGROUND

Esophageal fully covered self-expandable metal stents (FCSEMS) are indicated for the management of benign and malignant conditions of the esophagus including perforations, leaks, and strictures. FCSEMS are resistant to tissue ingrowth and are removable; however, stent migration occurs in 30-55% of cases. Endoscopic suture fixation of FCSEMS has been utilized to decrease the risk of stent migration though data supporting this practice remain limited. The primary aim of this study was to compare clinical outcomes and migration rate of patients who underwent placement of esophageal FCSEMS with and without endoscopic suture fixation.

METHODS

Our single-center, retrospective, cohort study includes patients who underwent esophageal FCSEMS placement with and without endoscopic suture fixation between January 1, 2012, and November 11, 2015. Baseline patient characteristics, procedural details, and clinical outcomes were abstracted. Logistic regression was performed to identify clinical and technical factors associated with outcomes and stent migration.

RESULTS

A total of 51 patients underwent 62 FCSEMS placements, including 21 procedures with endoscopic suture fixation and 41 without. Suture fixation was associated with reduced risk of stent migration (OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.03-0.47). Prior stent migration was associated with significantly higher risk of subsequent migration (OR 6.4, 95% CI 1.6-26.0). Stent migration was associated with lower likelihood of clinical success (OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.06-0.69). There was a trend toward higher clinical success among patients undergoing suture fixation (85.7 vs. 60.9%, p = 0.07).

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopic suture fixation of FCSEMS was associated with a reduced stent migration rate. Appropriate patient selection for suture fixation of FCSEMS may lead to reduced migration in high-risk patients.

Effect of Early Use of Covered Self-Expandable Endoscopic Stent on the Treatment of Postoperative Stapler Line Leaks

BACKGROUND

Postoperative leaks are a dreaded complication after bariatric surgery (BS). Its treatment is based on nutritional support and sepsis control by antibiotics, collections drainage and/or prosthesis, and/or surgery.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study is to report our experience with coated self-expandable endoscopic stents (SEES) for leaks treatment.

SETTING

This study was performed in a University Hospital, (censored).

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of our BS database from January 2007 to December 2013. All patients with leak after BS treated with SEES were included.

RESULTS

We identified 29 patients; 17 (59%) were women, with median age of 37 (19-65) years, and preoperative body mass index of 40 (28.7-56-6) kg/m(2). Nineteen (65.5%) patients had a sleeve gastrectomy and 10 (34.5%) a Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. All patients had a leak in the stapler line. Median time from surgery to leak diagnosis was 7 (1-51) days, and SEES were installed 8 (0-104) days after diagnosis. Twenty-one (72%) patients also had abdominal exploration. Median length of SEES use was 60 (1-299) days. Patients who had SEES as primary treatment (with or without simultaneous reoperation) had a shorter leak closure time (50 [6-112] vs 109 [60-352] days; p = 0.008). Twenty-eight (96.5%) patients successfully achieved leak closure with SEES. There were 16 migrations in 10 (34%) patients, 1 (3%) stent fracture, 1 opening of the blind end of alimentary limb (3%), and 5 patients (17%) required a second stent due to leak persistence.

CONCLUSIONS

SEES is a feasible, safe, and effective management of post BS leaks, although patients may also require prosthesis revision and abdominal exploration. Primary SEES placement is associated with a shorter leak resolution time.

Refractory gastroparesis can be successfully managed with endoscopic transpyloric stent placement and fixation (with video)

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Medical treatment options for gastroparesis are limited. Data from studies of botulinum toxin and surgical pyloroplasty suggest that disruption of the pylorus can result in symptomatic improvement in some patients with refractory gastroparetic symptoms. The aim of this study was to determine the clinical response to transpyloric stent (TPS) placement in patients with gastroparetic symptoms refractory to standard therapy.

METHODS

Patients with gastroparesis refractory to medical treatment were referred for TPS placement for salvage therapy. Self-reported symptom improvement, stent migration rate, and pre- and post-stent gastric-emptying study results were collected.

RESULTS

A total of 30 patients with refractory gastroparesis underwent 48 TPS procedures. Of these, 25 of 48 (52.1%) were performed in patients admitted to the hospital with intractable gastroparetic symptoms. Successful stent placement in the desired location across the pylorus (technical success) was achieved during 47 procedures (98%). Most (n = 24) stents were anchored to the gastric wall by using endoscopic suturing with a mean number of sutures of 2 (range 1-3) per procedure. Clinical response was observed in 75% of patients, and all inpatients were successfully discharged. Clinical success in patients with the predominant symptoms of nausea and vomiting was higher than in those patients with a predominant symptom of pain (79% vs 21%, P = .12). A repeat gastric-emptying study was performed in 16 patients, and the mean 4-hour gastric emptying normalized in 6 patients and significantly improved in 5 patients. Stent migration was least common (48%) when stents were sutured.

CONCLUSION

TPS placement is a feasible novel endoscopic treatment modality for gastroparesis and improves both symptoms and gastric emptying in patients who are refractory to medical treatment, especially those with nausea and vomiting. TPS placement may be considered as salvage therapy for inpatients with intractable symptoms or potentially as a method to select patients who may respond to more permanent therapies directed at the pylorus.

Oesophageal stenting for benign and malignant strictures: a systematic approach

Oesophageal stenting is now standard treatment for managing both benign and malignant stenosis of the oesophagus. There is a wide choice in oesophageal stents currently available on the market, with variations in the stent material, size and design. Most oesophageal stents are made from metal alloy compounds for use in malignant strictures, although there are stents made of durable polymers, and now of biodegradable (BD) material, for use in both benign and malignant strictures. With the development of self-expanding plastic stents, self-expanding metal stents and BD stents, stent placement for oesophageal pathologies can be safe and cost-effective. Oesophageal stenting has several challenges for a therapeutic endoscopist which is determined by the location of stricture or tumour, the anatomy of the stenosis and the nature of stent selected. Strictures that have narrow or tortuous lumens can be particularly difficult to stent as the luminal diameter must allow access of at least a 0.035 inch guide wire. This review covers the indications and outcomes of different stents in clinical situations to help rational decision-making.