Comparison between esophageal Wallstent and Ultraflex stents in the treatment of malignant stenoses of the esophagus and cardia

Détails

ID Serval
serval:BIB_87BB2D042239
Type
Article: article d'un périodique ou d'un magazine.
Collection
Publications
Titre
Comparison between esophageal Wallstent and Ultraflex stents in the treatment of malignant stenoses of the esophagus and cardia
Périodique
Endoscopy
Auteur(s)
Dorta  G., Binek  J., Blum  A. L., Buhler  H., Felley  C. P., Koelz  H. R., Lammer  F., Lang  C., Meier  R., Meyenberger  C., Meyer-Wyss  B., Michetti  P., Protiva  P., Scheurer  U., Weber  B., Wiesel  P., Vogel  S.
ISSN
0013-726X (Print)
Statut éditorial
Publié
Date de publication
03/1997
Volume
29
Numéro
3
Pages
149-54
Notes
Comparative Study
Journal Article --- Old month value: Mar
Résumé
BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Several published studies have examined various self-expanding metal esophageal stents for use in the palliative treatment of esophageal or cardiac neoplasia, but few have compared different self-expanding metal stents. The aim of this study was to evaluate non-covered Wallstent and Ultraflex prostheses in the treatment of malignancies in the esophagus and the cardiac region. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a retrospective study, the effectiveness of non-covered Wallstents (46 patients) and Ultraflex stents (36 patients) was compared in the treatment of malignancies in the esophageal and cardiac regions. RESULTS: Reintervention procedures were necessary in 16 of the 46 Wallstent patients (six patients during an early phase) and in 22 of the 36 Ultraflex patients (13 during an early phase) (overall P = 0.022; early P = 0.018). The major complication in the Wallstent group was tumor ingrowth (12 of 35 complications), while in the Ultraflex group, it was incomplete deployment (18 of 49 complications). Incomplete stent deployment occurred more often in patients treated with Ultraflex (P = 0.01), and food impaction was more often observed in the Wallstent group (P = 0.001). In addition, in patients with Ultraflex stents, more complex reinterventions were necessary than those required with Wallstents (four vs. 13 complex reinterventions, P = 0.0046). Wallstents tended to improve dysphagia better than Ultraflex stents. CONCLUSION: Compared to Ultraflex stents, Wallstents have several significant short-term and long-term advantages in the palliative treatment of malignancy of the esophagus and cardia.
Mots-clé
Adult Aged Aged, 80 and over Cardia Esophageal Neoplasms/*complications Esophageal Stenosis/etiology/*therapy Female Humans Male Middle Aged *Palliative Care Retrospective Studies *Stents/adverse effects Stomach Neoplasms/*complications
Pubmed
Web of science
Création de la notice
25/01/2008 16:58
Dernière modification de la notice
03/03/2018 19:02
Données d'usage