Dataset Information

Efficacy of Retrievable Metallic Stent with Fixation String for Benign Stricture after Upper Gastrointestinal Surgery.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To determine the efficacy of retrievable metallic stent with fixation string for benign anastomotic stricture after upper gastrointestinal (UGI) surgery.

Materials and methods

From June 2009 to May 2015, a total of 56 retrievable metallic stents with fixation string were placed under fluoroscopy guidance in 42 patients who were diagnosed with benign anastomotic stricture after UGI surgery. Clinical success was defined as achieving normal regular diet (NRD).

Results

The clinical success rate after the first stent placement was 57.1% (24/42). After repeated stent placement and/or balloon dilation, the clinical success rate was increased to 83.3% (35/42). Six (14.3%) patients required surgical revision to achieve NRD. One (2.4%) patient failed to achieve NRD. Stent migration occurred in 60.7% (34/56) of patients. Successful rate of removing the stent using fixation string and angiocatheter was 94.6% (53/56). Distal migration occurred in 12 stents. Of the 12 stents, 10 (83.3%) were successfully removed whereas 2 could not be removed. No complication occurred regarding distal migration.

Conclusion

Using retrievable metallic stent with a fixation string is a feasible option for managing early benign anastomotic stricture after UGI surgery. It can reduce complications caused by distal migration of the stent.

SUBMITTER: Kim JE

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5102917 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Endoscopic placement of multiple plastic stents in parallel is the first-line treatment for most benign biliary strictures; it is possible that fully covered, self-expandable metallic stents (cSEMS) may require fewer endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography procedures (ERCPs) to achieve resolution.To assess whether use of cSEMS is noninferior to plastic stents with respect to stricture resolution.Multicenter (8 endoscopic referral centers), open-label, parallel, randomized clinical trial involving patients with treatment-naive, benign biliary strictures (N?=?112) due to orthotopic liver transplant (n?=?73), chronic pancreatitis (n?=?35), or postoperative injury (n?=?4), who were enrolled between April 2011 and September 2014 (with follow-up ending October 2015). Patients with a bile duct diameter less than 6 mm and those with an intact gallbladder in whom the cystic duct would be overlapped by a cSEMS were excluded.Patients (N?=?112) were randomized to receive multiple plastic stents or a single cSEMS, stratified by stricture etiology and with endoscopic reassessment for resolution every 3 months (plastic stents) or every 6 months (cSEMS). Patients were followed up for 12 months after stricture resolution to assess for recurrence.Primary outcome was stricture resolution after no more than 12 months of endoscopic therapy. The sample size was estimated based on the noninferiority of cSEMS to plastic stents, with a noninferiority margin of -15%.There were 55 patients in the plastic stent group (mean [SD] age, 57 [11] years; 17 women [31%]) and 57 patients in the cSEMS group (mean [SD] age, 55 [10] years; 19 women [33%]). Compared with plastic stents (41/48, 85.4%), the cSEMS resolution rate was 50 of 54 patients (92.6%), with a rate difference of 7.2% (1-sided 95% CI, -3.0% to ?; P?<?.001). Given the prespecified noninferiority margin of -15%, the null hypothesis that cSEMS is less effective than plastic stents was rejected. The mean number of ERCPs to achieve resolution was lower for cSEMS (2.14) vs plastic (3.24; mean difference, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.46; P?<?.001).Among patients with benign biliary strictures and a bile duct diameter 6 mm or more in whom the covered metallic stent would not overlap the cystic duct, cSEMS were not inferior to multiple plastic stents after 12 months in achieving stricture resolution. Metallic stents should be considered an appropriate option in patients such as these.clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01221311.

Project description:BackgroundTo develop an original and standardized ureteral stricture disease (USD) score and classification system for quantifying ureter stricture characteristics, assessing complexity of the minimally invasive upper urinary tract reconstructive (UUTR) surgical procedure, formulating preoperative plans, and offering objective comparisons of surgical techniques between different institutions and surgeons.MethodsWe retrospectively reviewed a test set of 64 patients and a validation set of 170 patients who underwent minimally invasive UUTR surgery from January 2018 to January 2021. Three factors were selected to be included in the USD score and classification system: (I) stricture etiology (E, 1-2 points); (II) stricture segment (S, 0-3 points); and (III) length of stricture (L, 1-5 points). The UUTR surgery involves low-complex surgeries (cystoscopy with ureteral dilation and stent placement, ureteropyeloplasty, end to end repair, ureteral reimplantation) and high-complex surgeries (onlay repair (buccal mucosae, lingual mucosae, appendix mucosae), Boari flap repair and ileal ureter replacement). Estimated blood loss and operative time were used as surrogate indicators of surgical complexity.ResultsThe interrater reliability of the USD score and classification system was 0.908. A linear relationship between the USD score and estimated blood loss was observed (rs =0.676, P<0.001). The USD score was also correlated with operative time (rs =0.638, P<0.001). A significant difference in USD scores was found between the high and low complexity surgery groups (4 vs. 7, P<0.001). Variability of UUTR surgery is based on USD classification system, but with regularity to conform to.ConclusionsThe USD score and classification system is a concise, easily applicable, and validated scale to delineate the clinically significant features of ureter stricture that correlate with the complexity of the UUTR surgical procedure. The use of this score and classification system can facilitate preoperative plan and comparison of USD treatments in clinical practice and urological literature. Research with large sample is needed to further examine and modify the use of the system.