Article

Use of temporary esophageal stent in management of perforations after benign esophageal surgery.

Department of Surgery, Creighton University Medical Center, Omaha, NE, USA.
Surgical laparoscopy, endoscopy & percutaneous techniques (Impact Factor: 0.88). 07/2008; 18(3):283-5. DOI: 10.1097/SLE.0b013e31816b4bbd
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Successful conservative management in 3 patients with catastrophic postoperative esophageal leak after nonresection surgery is presented. In each case, the placement of removable stent played a significant role. First patient had persistent leak after primary repair of intrathoracic esophageal perforation. The second patient underwent a transthoracic redo Collis-Nissen repair and was subsequently found to have a perforation in the midesophagus. The last patient had a history of recurrent hiatal hernia repair with mesh reinforcement of the hiatus. A perforation resulted from mesh eroding into the esophagus. All the patients had endoscopic placement of removable silicone-covered polyester stent under fluoroscopic guidance. Stent placement was successful in all patients allowing immediate resumption of diet. After stent removal, contrast study showed no leak or stricture. Endoscopic stent therapy is an effective option in the management of postoperative esophageal perforation.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
83 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Laparoscopic techniques have led to hiatal procedures being performed with less morbidity but higher failure rates. Biologic mesh (biomesh) has been proposed as an alternative to plastic mesh to achieve durable repairs while minimizing stricturing and erosion. This paper documents the lack of significant dysphagia after the placement of biomesh during hiatal hernia repair. A retrospective chart review of patients who underwent paraesophageal hiatal hernia repairs with and without biomesh was performed. Hernias were diagnosed with esophagogastroscopy and esophageal manometry. Demographic, procedural, and pre- and post-surgery symptom data were recorded. Fifty-six patients underwent biomesh repair while 33 patients underwent non-mesh repairs. The procedure time for mesh repairs was significantly longer (p = 0.004). Hospital stays, resting lower esophageal sphincter pressure, and mean contraction amplitudes were similar between groups. Residual pressure was measured to be significantly higher in patients who had mesh repairs (p = 0.0001). Normal esophageal peristalsis was maintained in both groups. At first follow-up, mesh patients complained of more dysphagia and bloating, but non-mesh patients had more heartburn. At second follow-up, non-mesh patients had more symptom complaints than mesh patients. The addition of biomesh for hiatal hernia repair does not result in significantly increased patient dysphagia rates postoperatively compared with patients who underwent primary repair.
    Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery 07/2011; 15(10):1743-9. · 2.36 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Enteral stent placement for disorders of the gastrointestinal tract has evolved significantly over the past decade. While the majority of enteral stent placement is still performed for malignant obstruction, advancements in endoscopic technique and device technology have opened the door for the use of enteral stenting for benign disease as well. This chapter focuses on the indications, techniques, and currently available technologies for stent placement in the esophagus, small intestine, and colon. KeywordsGastrointestinal-Tract-Stenting-Esophageal-Enteral
    01/1970: pages 33-53;
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The aim of this review was to assess the safety and effectiveness of esophageal stents in the management of benign esophageal perforation and in the management of esophageal anastomotic leaks. Benign esophageal perforation and postoperative esophageal anastomotic leak are often encountered. Endoscopic placement of esophageal stent across the site of leakage might help control the sepsis and reduce the mortality and morbidity. All the published case series reporting the use of metallic and plastic stents in the management of postoperative anastomotic leaks, spontaneous esophageal perforations, and iatrogenic esophageal perforations were identified from MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PubMed (1990-2012). Primary outcomes assessed were technical success rates and complete healing rates. Secondary outcomes assessed were stent migration rates, stent perforation rates, duration of hospital stay, time to stent removal, and mortality rates. A pooled analysis was performed and subgroup analysis was performed for plastic versus metallic stents and anastomotic leaks versus perforations separately. A total of 27 case series with 340 patients were included. Technical and clinical success rates of stenting were 91% and 81%, respectively. Stent migration rates were significantly higher with plastic stents than with metallic stents (40/148 vs 13/117 patients, respectively; P = 0.001). Patients with metallic stents had significantly higher incidence of postprocedure strictures (P = 0.006). However, patients with plastic stents needed significantly higher number of reinterventions (P = 0.005). Mean postprocedure hospital stay varied from 8 days to 51 days. There was no significant difference in the primary or secondary outcomes when stenting was performed for anastomotic leaks or perforations. Endoscopic management of esophageal anastomotic leaks and perforations with the use of esophageal stents is technically feasible. It seems to be safe and effective when performed along with mediastinal or pleural drainage. Esophageal stent can, therefore, be considered as a treatment option in the management of patients who present early after esophageal perforation or anastomotic leak with limited mediastinal or pleural contamination.
    Annals of surgery 02/2014; · 7.90 Impact Factor