Literature DB >> 25159625

Endoscopic suture fixation of self-expanding metallic stents with and without submucosal injection.

Victor T Wilcox1, Albert Y Huang, Nabil Tariq, Brian J Dunkin.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Self-expanding metallic stents (SEMS) are useful for treating leaks after bariatric procedures but stent migration (12 to 40 %) remains a problem. Suture fixation has been used to minimize migration but has attendant risks of transmural penetration. We hypothesized that submucosal injection would decrease the risk of full thickness suture penetration while still providing greater pullout forces than endoscopic clipping.
METHODS: Porcine explant models and 155 mm SEMS were used with a force meter to measure the pullout forces required to dislodge the stent. Stents were first deployed without fixation and this pullout force acted as a control. The explants were then randomized to receive fixation with clips, endoscopic suturing with submucosal elevation, or endoscopic suturing without submucosal elevation. The pullout force was again measured and the ratio of the experimental to control pullout forces was used as a measure of the efficacy of the fixation.
RESULTS: Endoscopic suture fixation after submucosal injection resulted in statistically significant increased pullout force compared to clip fixation (n = 5; mean force ratio 462 %; 95 % confidence interval [CI] 281-643 %; p < 0.01). Endoscopic suturing fixation without submucosal injection also resulted in statistically significant increased pullout force (n = 5; mean force ratio 765 %; 95 % CI 258-632 %; p < 0.01). Fixation with clips did not result in significantly increased pullout force compared to no fixation (n = 5; mean force ratio 108 %; 95 % CI 56-159 %; p < 0.01). Submucosal injection also eliminated full thickness suture penetration (0/10 submucosal injection; 7/10 no injection).
CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopic suture fixation of SEMS resulted in a statistically significant increase in pullout force necessary to displace the stents. Submucosal injection prior to suture fixation preserves the increased pullout force while minimizing the risk of transmural penetration with the potential for less risk of injury to mediastinal structures.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25159625     DOI: 10.1007/s00464-014-3640-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Surg Endosc        ISSN: 0930-2794            Impact factor:   4.584


  8 in total

1.  Solving the problem of difficult stent removal due to tissue ingrowth in partially uncovered esophageal self-expanding metal stents.

Authors:  Felix B Langer; Sebastian F Schoppmann; Gerhard Prager; Franz M Riegler; Johannes Zacherl
Journal:  Ann Thorac Surg       Date:  2010-05       Impact factor: 4.330

2.  Utility of removable esophageal covered self-expanding metal stents for leak and fistula management.

Authors:  Shanda H Blackmon; Rachel Santora; Peter Schwarz; Alberto Barroso; Brian J Dunkin
Journal:  Ann Thorac Surg       Date:  2010-03       Impact factor: 4.330

3.  Fate of migrated esophageal and gastroduodenal stents: experience in 70 patients.

Authors:  Heung-Kyu Ko; Ho-Young Song; Ji Hoon Shin; Gin Hyug Lee; Hwoong-Yong Jung; Seung-Il Park
Journal:  J Vasc Interv Radiol       Date:  2007-06       Impact factor: 3.464

4.  Removable and repositionable covered metal self-expandable stents for leaks after upper gastrointestinal surgery: experiences in a tertiary referral hospital.

Authors:  Bart J M Leenders; Arnold Stronkhorst; Frans J Smulders; Grard A Nieuwenhuijzen; Lennard P L Gilissen
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2013-02-23       Impact factor: 4.584

5.  Use of a fully covered self-expandable metal stent for the treatment of benign esophageal diseases.

Authors:  Johan C Bakken; Louis M Wong Kee Song; Piet C de Groen; Todd H Baron
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2010-10       Impact factor: 9.427

6.  Partially versus fully covered self-expanding metal stents for benign and malignant esophageal conditions: a single center experience.

Authors:  Gulseren Seven; Shayan Irani; Andrew S Ross; S Ian Gan; Michael Gluck; Donald Low; Richard A Kozarek
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2013-01-31       Impact factor: 4.584

7.  Self-expanding plastic stents in treatment of benign esophageal conditions.

Authors:  Adrian N Holm; Jose G de la Mora Levy; Christopher J Gostout; Mark D Topazian; Todd H Baron
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2007-10-22       Impact factor: 9.427

8.  Endoscopic suture fixation of gastrointestinal stents: proof of biomechanical principles and early clinical experience.

Authors:  E Rieder; C M Dunst; D V Martinec; M A Cassera; L L Swanstrom
Journal:  Endoscopy       Date:  2012-11-27       Impact factor: 10.093

  8 in total
  5 in total

1.  Role of Primary Use of Mega Stents Alone and Combined with Other Endoscopic Procedures for Early Leak and Stenosis After Bariatric Surgery, Single-Institution Experience.

Authors:  Mohamed Hany; Mohamed Ibrahim; Ahmed Zidan; Mohamed Samir; Amr Elsherif; Mohamed Selema; Mohamed Sharaan; Mohamed Elhashash
Journal:  Obes Surg       Date:  2021-01-06       Impact factor: 4.129

Review 2.  Endoscopic Management of Benign Esophageal Ruptures and Leaks.

Authors:  Milena Di Leo; Roberta Maselli; Elisa Chiara Ferrara; Laura Poliani; Sameer Al Awadhi; Alessandro Repici
Journal:  Curr Treat Options Gastroenterol       Date:  2017-06

3.  Outcome and Adverse Events of Endoscopic Bariatric Stents for Management of Leakage after Bariatric Surgery.

Authors:  Hosam Hamed; Mohammed Said; Hosam Elghadban; Ahmed Elgeidie
Journal:  Obes Surg       Date:  2020-03       Impact factor: 4.129

4.  Endoscopic Stents in the Management of Bariatric Complications: Our Algorithm and Outcomes.

Authors:  Shyam Vedantam; Jay Roberts
Journal:  Obes Surg       Date:  2020-03       Impact factor: 4.129

Review 5.  Endoscopic Full-Thickness Defects and Closure Techniques.

Authors:  Diogo T H de Moura; Amit H Sachdev; Christopher C Thompson
Journal:  Curr Treat Options Gastroenterol       Date:  2018-12
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.