Uncovered self-expandable metallic stent placement as a first-line palliative therapy in unresectable malignant duodenal obstruction

Fracture of a Self-expandable Metallic Stent Inserted for Malignant Gastric Outlet Obstruction

Duodenal stenting has gradually been established as the first-line treatment for malignant gastric outlet obstruction (GOO). We encountered a case of duodenal stent fracture in a 76-year-old woman with gastric cancer and GOO. She underwent self-expandable metallic stent (SEMS) placement. The SEMS was found to be fractured 4 weeks after its placement. We removed the broken part of the stent and placed a second SEMS. SEMS fracture is a rare and - to the best of our knowledge - unreported complication; hence, clinicians and their patients should be aware of this possibility.

Big End Double-Layer Stents for the Treatment of Gastric Outlet Obstruction Caused by Stomach Cancer

Objectives

This study is aimed at evaluating the efficacy and safety of the big end double-layer uncovered self-expanding metal stents (SEMS) for the treatment of gastric outlet obstruction (GOO) caused by distal stomach cancer.

Methods

Seventy three patients receiving big end double-layer uncovered SEMS for the treatment of GOO caused by distal gastric cancer will be included in this multicenter prospective clinical trial. The main outcome measures included the functional outcome, the complications, the reinterventional rates, the average treatment charges, and the mean survival time. Monthly telephone calls were needed to assess the food intake until the patients died.

Results

The technical and the clinical success rates were 98.6%. The stent obstruction caused by tumor ingrowth was observed in one patient (1.4%). The incidence of food impaction was 2.9% (2/70) and the reinterventional rate was 4.3% (3/70). However, stent migration and obstruction caused by overgrowth were not observed. No perforation and severe bleeding were observed. The median cost of endoscopic stenting and total hospitalization (including reinterventions) for the big end double-layer uncovered SEMS in this study was $2945 and $3408, respectively. The mean survival time was 212.5 days.

Conclusions

The placement of big end double-layer uncovered SEMS is a safe and effective modality and has the potential to be one of the options for the treatment of GOO caused by the distal gastric cancer.

Comparison of big funnel and individualized stents for management of stomach cancer with gastric outlet obstruction

BACKGROUND

Previous studies reported a similar rate of complications, including stent migration and obstruction, between individualized stents and the standard uncovered stents in gastric outlet obstruction (GOO) caused by distal stomach cancer. The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of funnel stents for management of GOO caused by distal stomach cancer.

METHODS

This study was designed as a multicenter, controlled, prospective, and randomized clinical trial involving 4 hospitals. The individualized stent group (44 cases) received cup and funnel covered stents, and the funnel group (44 cases) received only funnel covered stents for management of GOO caused by distal gastric cancer.

RESULTS

All patients with GOO were treated with cup and funnel stents according to their assigned groups. The rate of GOO resolution was 100% in the funnel group and 97.7% in the individualized stent group. Stent obstruction caused by tumor ingrowth was observed in 1 patient in the individualized stent group, and proximal partial stent migration was observed in 1 patient in each group. Stent obstruction caused by tumor ingrowth was observed in 1 patient in the individualized stent group. There was no statistical difference in stent migration, obstruction, and survival between groups.

CONCLUSION

Big funnel stents and individualized stents resulted in similar shaping effect and prevention of stent migration and obstruction, suggesting that funnel shaped stents can be used to treat cup or funnel shaped GOO caused by distal stomach cancer.

Comparison between uncovered and covered self-expandable metal stent placement in malignant duodenal obstruction

AIM: To compare the clinical outcomes of uncovered and covered self-expandable metal stent placements in patients with malignant duodenal obstruction.

METHODS: A total of 67 patients were retrospectively enrolled from January 2003 to June 2013. All patients had symptomatic obstruction characterized by nausea, vomiting, reduced oral intake, and weight loss. The exclusion criteria included asymptomatic duodenal obstruction, perforation or peritonitis, concomitant small bowel obstruction, or duodenal obstruction caused by benign strictures. The technical and clinical success rate, complication rate, and stent patency were compared according to the placement of uncovered (n = 38) or covered (n = 29) stents.

RESULTS: The technical and clinical success rates did not differ between the uncovered and covered stent groups (100% vs 96.6% and 89.5% vs 82.8%). There were no differences in the overall complication rates between the uncovered and covered stent groups (31.6% vs 41.4%). However, stent migration occurred more frequently with covered than uncovered stents [20.7% (6/29) vs 0% (0/38), P < 0.05]. Moreover, the overall cumulative median duration of stent patency was longer in uncovered than in covered stents [251 d (95%CI: 149.8 d-352.2 d) vs 139 d (95%CI: 45.5 d-232.5 d), P < 0.05 by log-rank test] The overall cumulative median survival period was not different between the uncovered stent (70 d) and covered stent groups (60 d).

CONCLUSION: Uncovered stents may be preferable in malignant duodenal obstruction because of their greater resistance to stent migration and longer stent patency than covered stents.

A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial of Malignant Gastric Outlet Obstruction: Tailored Partially Covered Stents (Placed Fluoroscopically) versus Standard Uncovered Stents (Placed Endoscopically)

The aim of our study is to compare the efficacy and safety of “outlet-shape” tailored stents with standard stents for the management of distal gastric cancer causing gastric outlet obstructions (GOOs) with varying gastric cavity shapes and sizes. To determine the shape and size of the GOOs, stomach opacifications were performed using contrast media before stenting. Two basic shapes of the residual cavity of the proximal GOO were observed: cup shaped or approximately cup shaped and funnel shaped or approximately funnel shaped. Other shapes were not found. In the GOO tailored group, the size and shape of the proximal ends of the tailored stent were suited for the residual cavity of the proximal GOO. The tailored stents included large cup-shaped stents and large funnel-shaped stents. GOO tailored covered stents led to less restenosis and reintervention rates compared to standard uncovered stents but with the same survival.

SEMS vs cSEMS in duodenal and small bowel obstruction: High risk of migration in the covered stent group

AIM: To compare clinical success and complications of uncovered self-expanding metal stents (SEMS) vs covered SEMS (cSEMS) in obstruction of the small bowel.

METHODS: Technical success, complications and outcome of endoscopic SEMS or cSEMS placement in tumor related obstruction of the duodenum or jejunum were retrospectively assessed. The primary end points were rates of stent migration and overgrowth. Secondary end points were the effect of concomitant biliary drainage on migration rate and overall survival. The data was analyzed according to the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology guidelines.

RESULTS: Thirty-two SEMS were implanted in 20 patients. In all patients, endoscopic stent implantation was successful. Stent migration was observed in 9 of 16 cSEMS (56%) in comparison to 0/16 SEMS (0%) implantations (P = 0.002). Stent overgrowth did not significantly differ between the two stent types (SEMS: 3/16, 19%; cSEMS: 2/16, 13%). One cSEMS dislodged and had to be recovered from the jejunum by way of laparotomy. Time until migration between SEMS and cSEMS in patients with and without concomitant biliary stents did not significantly differ (HR = 1.530, 95%CI 0.731-6.306; P = 0.556). The mean follow-up was 57 ± 71 d (range: 1-275 d).

CONCLUSION: SEMS and cSEMS placement is safe in small bowel tumor obstruction. However, cSEMS is accompanied with a high rate of migration in comparison to uncovered SEMS.