Treatment of thoracic esophageal anastomotic leaks and esophageal perforations with endoluminal stents: Efficacy and current limitations

135Citations
Citations of this article
67Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

Background: Intra-thoracic esophageal leakage after esophageal resection or esophageal perforation is a life-threatening event. The objective of this non-randomized observational study was to evaluate the effects of endoluminal stent treatment in patients with esophageal anastomotic leakages or perforations in a single tertiary care center. Methods: Thirty-two consecutive patients with an intrathoracic esophageal leak, caused by esophagectomy (n=19), transhiatal gastrectomy (n=3), laparoscopic fundoplication (n=2), and iatrogenic or spontaneous perforation (n=8), undergoing endoscopic stent treatment were evaluated. Hospital stay, mortality and morbidity, sealing rate, extraction rates, complications, and long-term effects were measured. Results: Median time interval between diagnosis and stent treatment was 3 and 5 days, respectively. Eighteen patients had futile surgical closure of the defect before stenting, while in 14 patients, stent placement was the primary treatment for leakage. Stent placement was technically correct in all patients. Functional sealing was achieved in 78%. Mortality was 15.6%. Stent extraction rate was 70%. Overall method-related complications occurred in nine patients (28%). Conclusions: Implantation of self-expanding stents after esophageal resection or perforation is a feasible and safe procedure with an acceptable morbidity even if used as last-choice treatment. © 2008 The Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Tuebergen, D., Rijcken, E., Mennigen, R., Hopkins, A. M., Senninger, N., & Bruewer, M. (2008). Treatment of thoracic esophageal anastomotic leaks and esophageal perforations with endoluminal stents: Efficacy and current limitations. Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery, 12(7), 1168–1176. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11605-008-0500-4

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free