BACKGROUND: Self-expandable metallic stents are used widely to relieve malignant gastric outlet obstruction (GOO). However, restenosis or migration of first stents is a frequent complication. The purpose of this retrospective cohort study was to evaluate the effectiveness of second stents as an approach to manage failure of first stents in patients with malignant GOO. METHODS: A total of 222 patients with gastric cancer received first stents due to inoperable GOO at National Cancer Center in Korea between January 2008 and June 2011. Monthly follow-up interviews were performed, and second stents (stent-in-stent or stent-after-migration) were inserted in 59 patients by June 2012. Technical and clinical successes and long-term complications were evaluated. RESULTS: The technical and immediate clinical success rates were 98.3 % (58/59) and 91.5 % (54/59), respectively. Patients who received a second stent due to late complications involving the first stent (migration, restenosis, and fracture) showed a higher clinical success rate (95.8 % [46/48]) than patients who received a second stent due to immediate clinical failure of the first stent (72.7 % [8/11], p = 0.04). The immediate clinical success rate of stent-after-migration (100 % [11/11]) was not different from that of stent-in-stent (89.6 % [43/48], p = 1.0). The stent dysfunction rate of stent-after-migration (27.3 % [3/11]) also was similar to that of stent-in-stent (29.2 % [14/48], p = 1.0). The median patencies of stent-in-stent and stent-after-migration were 27.4 and 58.4 weeks, respectively (p = 0.177). There were no significant prognostic factors for patency of second stents. CONCLUSIONS: Insertion of a second stent is effective for treating the first-stent failure in gastric cancer patients with GOO, especially if the immediate outcome of the first stent was successful.
BACKGROUND: Self-expandable metallic stents are used widely to relieve malignant gastric outlet obstruction (GOO). However, restenosis or migration of first stents is a frequent complication. The purpose of this retrospective cohort study was to evaluate the effectiveness of second stents as an approach to manage failure of first stents in patients with malignant GOO. METHODS: A total of 222 patients with gastric cancer received first stents due to inoperable GOO at National Cancer Center in Korea between January 2008 and June 2011. Monthly follow-up interviews were performed, and second stents (stent-in-stent or stent-after-migration) were inserted in 59 patients by June 2012. Technical and clinical successes and long-term complications were evaluated. RESULTS: The technical and immediate clinical success rates were 98.3 % (58/59) and 91.5 % (54/59), respectively. Patients who received a second stent due to late complications involving the first stent (migration, restenosis, and fracture) showed a higher clinical success rate (95.8 % [46/48]) than patients who received a second stent due to immediate clinical failure of the first stent (72.7 % [8/11], p = 0.04). The immediate clinical success rate of stent-after-migration (100 % [11/11]) was not different from that of stent-in-stent (89.6 % [43/48], p = 1.0). The stent dysfunction rate of stent-after-migration (27.3 % [3/11]) also was similar to that of stent-in-stent (29.2 % [14/48], p = 1.0). The median patencies of stent-in-stent and stent-after-migration were 27.4 and 58.4 weeks, respectively (p = 0.177). There were no significant prognostic factors for patency of second stents. CONCLUSIONS: Insertion of a second stent is effective for treating the first-stent failure in gastric cancerpatients with GOO, especially if the immediate outcome of the first stent was successful.
Authors: J E van Hooft; M L van Montfoort; S M Jeurnink; M J Bruno; M G Dijkgraaf; P D Siersema; P Fockens Journal: Endoscopy Date: 2011-06-07 Impact factor: 10.093
Authors: Michael Piesman; Richard A Kozarek; John J Brandabur; Douglas K Pleskow; Ram Chuttani; Viktor E Eysselein; William B Silverman; John J Vargo; Irving Waxman; Marc F Catalano; Todd H Baron; Willis G Parsons; Adam Slivka; David L Carr-Locke Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2009-08-25 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: I Graber; R Dumas; B Filoche; J Boyer; D Coumaros; H Lamouliatte; J L Legoux; B Napoléon; T Ponchon Journal: Endoscopy Date: 2007-09 Impact factor: 10.093
Authors: Jeanin E van Hooft; Madeleen J Uitdehaag; Marco J Bruno; Robin Timmer; Peter D Siersema; Marcel G W Dijkgraaf; Paul Fockens Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2009-01-18 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Isaac Soo; Hans Gerdes; Arnold J Markowitz; Robin B Mendelsohn; Emmy Ludwig; Pari Shah; Mark A Schattner Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2015-06-20 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Marta Patita; Rui Castro; Diogo Libânio; Rui Pedro Bastos; Rui Silva; Mário Dinis-Ribeiro; Pedro Pimentel-Nunes Journal: GE Port J Gastroenterol Date: 2020-05-13
Authors: Jin Won Mo; Young Min Kim; Jie-Hyun Kim; Seung Yong Shin; Young Hoon Youn; Hyojin Park Journal: Medicine (Baltimore) Date: 2020-05-22 Impact factor: 1.817