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 (inter-quartile 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.
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 (inter-quartile 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.
Authors: S H Roy-Choudhury; A A Nicholson; K R Wedgwood; R A Mannion; P C Sedman; C M Royston; D J Breen Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2001-01 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: N A Christie; P O Buenaventura; H C Fernando; N T Nguyen; T L Weigel; P F Ferson; J D Luketich Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2001-06 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: M E Riccioni; S K Shah; A Tringali; S Ciletti; M Mutignani; V Perri; G Zuccalà; R Coppola; G Costamagna Journal: Dig Liver Dis Date: 2002-05 Impact factor: 4.088
Authors: P S Rajan; S Bansal; N S Balaji; S Rajapandian; R Parthasarathi; P Senthilnathan; P Praveenraj; C Palanivelu Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2014-03-08 Impact factor: 4.584