Sivesh K Kamarajah1,2, James Bundred3, Gary Spence4, Andrew Kennedy5, Bobby V M Dasari6, Ewen A Griffiths7,8. 1. Department of Hepatobiliary, Pancreatic and Transplant Surgery, Freeman Hospital, Newcastle University NHS Foundation Trust Hospitals, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK. 2. Institute of Cellular Medicine, University of Newcastle, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK. 3. College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK. 4. Division of Gastroenterology and Surgery, Ulster Hospital, Belfast, Northern Ireland, UK. 5. Department of Upper Gastro-Intestinal Surgery, Belfast City Hospital, Belfast Health and Social Care Trust, Belfast, UK. 6. Department of Hepatobiliary, Pancreatic and Transplant Surgery, Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham, Birmingham, UK. 7. Department of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgery, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Area 6, 7th Floor, Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham, Mindelsohn Way, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2WBUK, UK. ewen.griffiths@uhb.nhs.uk. 8. Institute of Cancer and Genomic Sciences, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK. ewen.griffiths@uhb.nhs.uk.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Endoscopic placement of oesophageal stents may be used in benign oesophageal perforation and oesophageal anastomotic leakage to control sepsis and reduce mortality and morbidity by avoiding thoracotomy. This updated systematic review aimed to assess the safety and effectiveness of oesophageal stents in these two scenarios. METHODS: A systematic literature search of all published studies reporting use of metallic and plastic stents in the management of post-operative anastomotic leaks, spontaneous and iatrogenic oesophageal perforations were identified. Primary outcomes were technical (deploying ≥ 1 stent to occlude site of leakage with no evidence of leakage of contrast within 24-48 h) and clinical success (complete healing of perforation or leakage by placement of single or multiple stents irrespective of whether the stent was left in situ or was removed). Secondary outcomes were stent migration, perforation and erosion, and mortality rates. Subgroup analysis was performed for plastic versus metallic stents and anastomotic leaks versus perforations separately. RESULTS: A total of 66 studies (n = 1752 patients) were included. Technical and clinical success rates were 96% and 87%, respectively. Plastic stents had significantly higher migration rates (24% vs 16%, p = 0.001) and repositioning (11% vs 3%, p < 0.001) and lower technical success (91% vs 95%, p = 0.032) than metallic stents. In patients with anastomotic leaks, plastic stents were associated with higher stent migration (26% vs 15%, p = 0.034), perforation (2% vs 0%, p = 0.013), repositioning (10% vs 0%, p < 0.001), and lower technical success (95% vs 100%, p = p = 0.002). In patients with perforations only, plastic stents were associated with significantly lower technical success (85% vs 99%, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Covered metallic oesophageal stents appear to be more effective than plastic stents in the management of oesophageal perforation and anastomotic leakage. However, quality of evidence of generally poor and high-quality randomised trial is needed to further evaluate best management option for oesophageal perforation and anastomotic leakage.
INTRODUCTION: Endoscopic placement of oesophageal stents may be used in benign oesophageal perforation and oesophageal anastomotic leakage to control sepsis and reduce mortality and morbidity by avoiding thoracotomy. This updated systematic review aimed to assess the safety and effectiveness of oesophageal stents in these two scenarios. METHODS: A systematic literature search of all published studies reporting use of metallic and plastic stents in the management of post-operative anastomotic leaks, spontaneous and iatrogenic oesophageal perforations were identified. Primary outcomes were technical (deploying ≥ 1 stent to occlude site of leakage with no evidence of leakage of contrast within 24-48 h) and clinical success (complete healing of perforation or leakage by placement of single or multiple stents irrespective of whether the stent was left in situ or was removed). Secondary outcomes were stent migration, perforation and erosion, and mortality rates. Subgroup analysis was performed for plastic versus metallic stents and anastomotic leaks versus perforations separately. RESULTS: A total of 66 studies (n = 1752 patients) were included. Technical and clinical success rates were 96% and 87%, respectively. Plastic stents had significantly higher migration rates (24% vs 16%, p = 0.001) and repositioning (11% vs 3%, p < 0.001) and lower technical success (91% vs 95%, p = 0.032) than metallic stents. In patients with anastomotic leaks, plastic stents were associated with higher stent migration (26% vs 15%, p = 0.034), perforation (2% vs 0%, p = 0.013), repositioning (10% vs 0%, p < 0.001), and lower technical success (95% vs 100%, p = p = 0.002). In patients with perforations only, plastic stents were associated with significantly lower technical success (85% vs 99%, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS:Covered metallic oesophageal stents appear to be more effective than plastic stents in the management of oesophageal perforation and anastomotic leakage. However, quality of evidence of generally poor and high-quality randomised trial is needed to further evaluate best management option for oesophageal perforation and anastomotic leakage.
Authors: Bobby V M Dasari; David Neely; Andrew Kennedy; Gary Spence; Paul Rice; Eamon Mackle; Emmanuel Epanomeritakis Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2014-05 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Eugene Licht; Arnold J Markowitz; Manjit S Bains; Hans Gerdes; Emmy Ludwig; Robin B Mendelsohn; Nabil P Rizk; Pari Shah; Vivian E Strong; Mark A Schattner Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2015-09-28 Impact factor: 4.330
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: Danny Yakoub; Ramy Fahmy; Thanos Athanasiou; Afshin Alijani; Christopher Rao; Ara Darzi; George B Hanna Journal: World J Surg Date: 2008-09 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: Mohammad A Al-issa; Torben I Petersen; Abdulsalam Y Taha; Jaffar S Shehatha Journal: Saudi J Gastroenterol Date: 2014 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 2.485
Authors: Ann-Kathrin Eichelmann; Sarah Ismail; Jennifer Merten; Patrycja Slepecka; Daniel Palmes; Mike G Laukötter; Andreas Pascher; Wolf Arif Mardin Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2021-02-24 Impact factor: 3.452