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: 1.14). 07/2008; 18(3):283-5. DOI: 10.1097/SLE.0b013e31816b4bbd
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.
Chapter: Gastrointestinal Tract Stenting[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
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Safe esophageal closure remains a challenge in transesophageal Natural Orifice Transluminal Endoscopic Surgery (NOTES). Previously described methods, such as suturing devices, clips, or submucosal tunneling, all have weaknesses. In this survival animal series, we demonstrate safe esophageal closure with a prototype retrievable, antimigration stent. Nine Yorkshire swine underwent thoracic NOTES procedures. A double-channel gastroscope equipped with a mucosectomy device was used to create an esophageal mucosal defect. A 5-cm submucosal tunnel was created and the muscular esophageal wall was incised with a needle-knife. Mediastinoscopy and thoracoscopy were performed in all swine; lymphadenectomy was performed in seven swine. A prototype small intestinal submucosal (SurgiSIS(®)) covered stent was deployed over the mucosectomy site and tunnel. Three versions of the prototype stent were developed. Prenecropsy endoscopy confirmed stent location and permitted stent retrieval. Explanted esophagi were sent to pathology. Esophageal stenting was successful in all animals. Stent placement took 15.8 ± 4.8 minuted and no stent migration occurred. Prenecropsy endoscopy revealed proximal ingrowth of esophageal mucosa and erosion with Stent A. Mucosal inflammation and erosion was observed proximally with Stent B. No esophageal erosion or pressure damage from proximal radial forces was seen with Stent C. On necropsy, swine 5 had a 0.5-cm periesophageal abscess. Histology revealed a localized inflammatory lesion at the esophageal exit site in swine 1, 3, and 9. The mucosectomy site was partially healed in three swine and poorly healed in six. All swine thrived clinically, except for a brief period of mild lethargy in swine 9 who improved with short-term antibiotic therapy. The submucosal tunnels were completely healed and no esophageal bleeding or stricture formation was observed. All swine survived 13.8 ± 0.4 days and gained weight in the postoperative period. Esophageal stenting provides safe closure for NOTES thoracic procedures but may impede healing of the mucosectomy site.
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.