Ryan Law1, Anoop Prabhu2, Larissa Fujii-Lau3, Carol Shannon4, Siddharth Singh5. 1. Division of Gastroenterology & Hepatology, University of Michigan, 1500 East Medical Center Drive, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. rjlaw@umich.edu. 2. Division of Gastroenterology & Hepatology, University of Michigan, 1500 East Medical Center Drive, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. 3. Division of Gastroenterology, The Queens Medical Center, Honolulu, HI, USA. 4. Taubman Health Sciences Library, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. 5. Division of Gastroenterology, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Covered self-expandable metal stents (SEMS) are utilized for the management of benign and malignant esophageal conditions; however, covered SEMS are prone to migration. Endoscopic suture fixation may mitigate the migration risk of covered esophageal SEMS. Hence, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of endoscopic suture fixation for covered esophageal SEMS. METHODS: Following PRISMA guidelines, we performed a systematic review from 2011 to 2016 to identify studies (case control/case series) reporting the technical success and migration rate of covered esophageal SEMS following endoscopic suture fixation. We searched multiple electronic databases and conference proceedings. We calculated pooled rates (and 95% confidence intervals [CI]) of technical success and stent migration using a random effects model. RESULTS: We identified 14 studies (212 patients) describing covered esophageal SEMS placement with endoscopic suture fixation. When reported, SEMS indications included leak/fistula (n = 75), stricture (n = 65), perforation (n = 10), and achalasia (n = 4). The pooled technical success rate was 96.7% (95% CI 92.3-98.6), without heterogeneity (I 2 = 0%). We identified 29 SEMS migrations at rate of 15.9% (95% CI 11.4-21.6), without heterogeneity (I 2 = 0%). Publication bias was observed, and using the trim-and-fill method, a more conservative estimate for stent migration was 17.0%. Suture-related adverse events were estimated to occur in 3.7% (95% CI 1.6-8.2) of cases. CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopic suture fixation of covered esophageal SEMS appears to reduce stent migration when compared to published rates of non-anchored SEMS. However, SEMS migration still occurs in approximately 1 out of 6 cases despite excellent immediate technical success and low risk of suture-related adverse events.
BACKGROUND: Covered self-expandable metal stents (SEMS) are utilized for the management of benign and malignant esophageal conditions; however, covered SEMS are prone to migration. Endoscopic suture fixation may mitigate the migration risk of covered esophageal SEMS. Hence, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of endoscopic suture fixation for covered esophageal SEMS. METHODS: Following PRISMA guidelines, we performed a systematic review from 2011 to 2016 to identify studies (case control/case series) reporting the technical success and migration rate of covered esophageal SEMS following endoscopic suture fixation. We searched multiple electronic databases and conference proceedings. We calculated pooled rates (and 95% confidence intervals [CI]) of technical success and stent migration using a random effects model. RESULTS: We identified 14 studies (212 patients) describing covered esophageal SEMS placement with endoscopic suture fixation. When reported, SEMS indications included leak/fistula (n = 75), stricture (n = 65), perforation (n = 10), and achalasia (n = 4). The pooled technical success rate was 96.7% (95% CI 92.3-98.6), without heterogeneity (I 2 = 0%). We identified 29 SEMS migrations at rate of 15.9% (95% CI 11.4-21.6), without heterogeneity (I 2 = 0%). Publication bias was observed, and using the trim-and-fill method, a more conservative estimate for stent migration was 17.0%. Suture-related adverse events were estimated to occur in 3.7% (95% CI 1.6-8.2) of cases. CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopic suture fixation of covered esophageal SEMS appears to reduce stent migration when compared to published rates of non-anchored SEMS. However, SEMS migration still occurs in approximately 1 out of 6 cases despite excellent immediate technical success and low risk of suture-related adverse events.
Entities:
Keywords:
Fully covered self-expandable metal stent; Stent migration; Suture fixation
Authors: Alessandro Liberati; Douglas G Altman; Jennifer Tetzlaff; Cynthia Mulrow; Peter C Gøtzsche; John P A Ioannidis; Mike Clarke; P J Devereaux; Jos Kleijnen; David Moher Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2009-07-20 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Reem Z Sharaiha; Nikhil A Kumta; Ersilia M DeFilippis; Christopher J Dimaio; Susana Gonzalez; Tamas Gonda; Jason Rogart; Ali Siddiqui; Paul S Berg; Paul Samuels; Larry Miller; Mouen A Khashab; Payal Saxena; Monica R Gaidhane; Amy Tyberg; Julio Teixeira; Jessica Widmer; Prashant Kedia; David Loren; Michel Kahaleh; Amrita Sethi Journal: J Clin Gastroenterol Date: 2016 May-Jun Impact factor: 3.062
Authors: Sivesh K Kamarajah; James Bundred; Gary Spence; Andrew Kennedy; Bobby V M Dasari; Ewen A Griffiths Journal: World J Surg Date: 2020-04 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: João Guilherme Ribeiro Jordão Sasso; Diogo Turiani Hourneaux de Moura; Igor Mendonça Proença; Epifânio Silvino do Monte Junior; Igor Braga Ribeiro; Sergio A Sánchez-Luna; Spencer Cheng; Alexandre Moraes Bestetti; Angelo So Taa Kum; Wanderley Marques Bernardo; Eduardo Guimarães Hourneaux de Moura Journal: Endosc Int Open Date: 2022-10-17