BACKGROUND AND GOALS: Using a self-expandable metallic stent (SEMS) in the cervical esophagus is controversial due to an increased risk of complications. Here we assessed a new type of SEMS purpose-designed for the cervical esophagus area. STUDY: Patients with malignant or benign stenosis within 4 cm distance of the upper esophageal sphincter who underwent placement of a SEMS with a shorter proximal head (Niti-S Esophageal Covered Stent-Cervical-type, NSECSC), were included. Main outcome measures were the functional outcome, tolerance, complications, recurrent dysphagia, and survival. RESULTS: About 37 patients had an NSECSC placed between April 2008 and June 2013 for esophageal stenosis (malignant=20, benign=17), 5 with associated tracheoesophageal fistula. The mean stenosis-upper esophageal sphincter distance was 1.86±1.27 cm. The median follow-up was 150 days. Dysphagia improved in 27/37 cases (73%). Short-term and long-term tolerance without needing stent removal was 92% and 82%, respectively. The complication rate was 59% (22/37): 32% (n=14) major complications [fistula (3), perforation (3), aspiration pneumonia (5), laryngeal dyspnea (2), and bleeding (1)], and 27% (n=10) minor complications [pain (7) or dysphonia (3)]. A multivariate analysis confirmed a higher risk of major complications in cases of benign stenosis (odds ratio=5.2; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-25.90; P=0.04). Recurrent dysphagia occurred in 15 patients (obstruction=7, migration=8). CONCLUSIONS: The NSECSC does not appear less morbid than standard SEMS in the cervical esophageal area, but could be useful in malignant indications as it is well-tolerated and offers effective palliation of the dysphagia. However, this device should not be used in benign cervical esophageal strictures or fistulas.
BACKGROUND AND GOALS: Using a self-expandable metallic stent (SEMS) in the cervical esophagus is controversial due to an increased risk of complications. Here we assessed a new type of SEMS purpose-designed for the cervical esophagus area. STUDY: Patients with malignant or benign stenosis within 4 cm distance of the upper esophageal sphincter who underwent placement of a SEMS with a shorter proximal head (Niti-S Esophageal Covered Stent-Cervical-type, NSECSC), were included. Main outcome measures were the functional outcome, tolerance, complications, recurrent dysphagia, and survival. RESULTS: About 37 patients had an NSECSC placed between April 2008 and June 2013 for esophageal stenosis (malignant=20, benign=17), 5 with associated tracheoesophageal fistula. The mean stenosis-upper esophageal sphincter distance was 1.86±1.27 cm. The median follow-up was 150 days. Dysphagia improved in 27/37 cases (73%). Short-term and long-term tolerance without needing stent removal was 92% and 82%, respectively. The complication rate was 59% (22/37): 32% (n=14) major complications [fistula (3), perforation (3), aspiration pneumonia (5), laryngeal dyspnea (2), and bleeding (1)], and 27% (n=10) minor complications [pain (7) or dysphonia (3)]. A multivariate analysis confirmed a higher risk of major complications in cases of benign stenosis (odds ratio=5.2; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-25.90; P=0.04). Recurrent dysphagia occurred in 15 patients (obstruction=7, migration=8). CONCLUSIONS: The NSECSC does not appear less morbid than standard SEMS in the cervical esophageal area, but could be useful in malignant indications as it is well-tolerated and offers effective palliation of the dysphagia. However, this device should not be used in benign cervical esophageal strictures or fistulas.