AIM: To compare 2 different types of covered esophageal nitinol stents (Ultraflex and Choostent) in terms of efficacy, complications, and long-term outcome. METHODS: A retrospective review of a consecutive series of 65 patients who underwent endoscopic placement of an Ultraflex stent (n = 33) or a Choostent (n = 32) from June 2001 to October 2009 was conducted. RESULTS: Stent placement was successful in all patients without hospital mortality. No significant differences in patient discomfort and complications were observed between the Ultraflex stent and Choostent groups. The median follow-up time was 6 mo (interquartile range 3-16 mo). Endoscopic reintervention was required in 9 patients (14%) because of stent migration or food obstruction. No significant difference in the rate of reintervention between the 2 groups was observed (P = 0.8). The mean dysphagia score 1 mo after stent placement was 1.9 ± 0.3 for the Ultraflex stent and 2.1 ± 0.4 for the Choostent (P = 0.6). At 1-mo follow-up endoscopy, the cover membrane of the stent appeared to be damaged more frequently in the Choostent group (P = 0.34). Removal of the Choostent was possible up to 8 wk without difficulty. CONCLUSION: Ultraflex and Choostent proved to be equally reliable for palliation of dysphagia and leaks. Removal of the Choostent was easy and safe under mild sedation.

Covered nitinol stents for the treatment of esophageal strictures and leaks / D. Bona, L. Laface, L. Bonavina, E. Abate, M. Schaffer, I. Ugenti, S. Siboni, R. Carrinola. - In: WORLD JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY. - ISSN 1007-9327. - 16:18(2010 May 14), pp. 2260-2264.

Covered nitinol stents for the treatment of esophageal strictures and leaks

D. Bona;L. Bonavina;
2010

Abstract

AIM: To compare 2 different types of covered esophageal nitinol stents (Ultraflex and Choostent) in terms of efficacy, complications, and long-term outcome. METHODS: A retrospective review of a consecutive series of 65 patients who underwent endoscopic placement of an Ultraflex stent (n = 33) or a Choostent (n = 32) from June 2001 to October 2009 was conducted. RESULTS: Stent placement was successful in all patients without hospital mortality. No significant differences in patient discomfort and complications were observed between the Ultraflex stent and Choostent groups. The median follow-up time was 6 mo (interquartile range 3-16 mo). Endoscopic reintervention was required in 9 patients (14%) because of stent migration or food obstruction. No significant difference in the rate of reintervention between the 2 groups was observed (P = 0.8). The mean dysphagia score 1 mo after stent placement was 1.9 ± 0.3 for the Ultraflex stent and 2.1 ± 0.4 for the Choostent (P = 0.6). At 1-mo follow-up endoscopy, the cover membrane of the stent appeared to be damaged more frequently in the Choostent group (P = 0.34). Removal of the Choostent was possible up to 8 wk without difficulty. CONCLUSION: Ultraflex and Choostent proved to be equally reliable for palliation of dysphagia and leaks. Removal of the Choostent was easy and safe under mild sedation.
Dysphagia; Endoscopy; Esophageal neoplasms; Neoadjuvant therapy; Palliative care; Self-expanding metal stents; Stricture; Surgical anastomosis
Settore MED/18 - Chirurgia Generale
Article (author)
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.
Pubblicazioni consigliate

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/2434/172388
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 5
  • Scopus 21
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 19
social impact