Esophageal perforation due to removal of partially covered self-expanding metal stents placed for a benign perforation or leak.

Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University Medical Center Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Endoscopy (Impact Factor: 5.74). 02/2011; 43(2):156-9. DOI: 10.1055/s-0030-1255849
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Benign esophageal perforations and anastomotic leaks can be effectively managed by stent placement. However, when partially covered self-expanding metal stents (SEMS) are used, safe removal may be complicated. In this case series, we evaluated the complicated removal of SEMS placed for a benign esophageal perforation or leak in four patients. In all patients a partially covered SEMS was placed. After a median stent time of 29 days (range 21 - 30), the SEMS were found to have become embedded in the esophageal wall. Endoscopic removal resulted in perforation in all patients. All patients recovered uneventfully, although one patient underwent esophagectomy. If uncovered SEMS ends become embedded, removal of the stent may cause major damage to the esophageal wall. It is therefore recommended to remove embedded partially covered SEMS only after first placing a fully covered SEMS or self-expanding plastic stent inside this stent to necrotize the ingrown tissue at the uncovered stent ends.

  • Cirugía Española 05/2014; · 0.87 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background Fully covered esophageal self-expandable metal stents (SEMSs) are potentially removable but can be associated with high migration rates. For precise positioning, non-foreshortening SEMSs are preferred. Recently, a new fully covered non-foreshortening SEMS with anti-migration features was introduced. Objective To evaluate the efficacy and safety of this new esophageal SEMS. Design Retrospective study. Setting Single, tertiary-care center. Patients Consecutive patients with malignant and benign strictures with dysphagia grade of ≥3 and patients with fistulas/leaks were studied. Interventions Stent placement and removal. Main Outcome Measurements Technical success in stent deployment/removal, efficacy in relieving dysphagia and sealing fistulas/leaks, and adverse events. Results Forty-three stents were placed in 35 patients (mean [± standard deviation] age 65 ± 11 years; 31 male), 24 for malignant and 11 for benign (5 strictures, 6 leaks) indications. Technical success in precise SEMS placement was 100%. The after-stent dysphagia grade improved significantly (at 1 week: 1.5 ± 0.7; at 4 weeks: 1.2 ± 0.4; baseline: 3.8 ± 0.4; P < .0001). Twenty stents were removed for clinical indications, with technical success of 100%. All leaks sealed after SEMS placement and did not recur after stent removal. All benign strictures recurred after stent removal. Adverse events included migration (14%), chest pain (11%), and dysphagia from tissue hyperplasia (6%). There was no stent-related mortality. Limitations Nonrandomized, single-center study. Conclusion The new esophageal SEMS was effective in relieving malignant dysphagia, allowed for precise placement, and was easily removable. It was effective in treating benign esophageal fistulas and leaks. Stent-related adverse events were acceptable.
    Gastrointestinal endoscopy 01/2014; · 6.71 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Anastomotic leaks are a life-threatening complication of gastrectomies with high mortality after surgical reintervention. Endoscopic therapy using fibrin glue injection, endoclip, and other devices is an alternative to surgical intervention for anastomotic leaks. Recently, self-expanding metal stents (SEMS) were introduced to treat anastomotic leaks. The purpose of this study was to assess the clinical characteristics and therapeutic outcomes of SEMS and nonstent endoscopic therapy (NSET) for treatment of anastomotic leaks after total gastrectomy with the aim of assisting endoscopists in choosing a treatment method. Between July 2002 and March 2013, 13 patients treated with SEMS and 14 patients treated with NSET for anastomotic leaks after total gastrectomy were enrolled onto the study. Enrolled patients received 16 SEMS placement sessions and 21 NSET sessions. No significant differences in baseline characteristics or clinical characteristics related to leakage were detected in patients with SEMS compared to NSET. The successful sealing rate at the first attempt by SEMS was significantly better than that of NSET (80.0 vs. 28.6 %, P = 0.036), whereas the successful sealing rate after multiple endoscopic treatments was not statistically different (80.0 vs. 64.3 %, P = 0.653). The main reason for reintervention with SEMS was complications and with NSET was nonseal (P = 0.004). Clinical outcomes including length of hospital stay, endoscopic treatment-related mortality, and all-cause mortality were not significantly different between the 2 groups. In terms of efficacy by single effort, SEMS was superior to other methods for treating anastomotic leaks after total gastrectomy. However, complications with SEMS should be considered when choosing an endoscopic treatment method.
    Surgical Endoscopy 10/2013; · 3.43 Impact Factor