Hybrid gastroenterostomy using a lumen-apposing metal stent: a case report focusing on misdeployment and systematic review of the current literature

Revealing Insights: A Comprehensive Overview of Gastric Outlet Obstruction Management, with Special Emphasis on EUS-Guided Gastroenterostomy

Gastric outlet obstruction (GOO) poses a common and challenging clinical scenario, characterized by mechanical blockage in the pylorus, distal stomach, or duodenum, resulting in symptoms such as nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, and early satiety. Its diverse etiology encompasses both benign and malignant disorders. The spectrum of current treatment modalities extends from conservative approaches to more invasive interventions, incorporating procedures like surgical gastroenterostomy (SGE), self-expandable metallic stents (SEMSs) placement, and the advanced technique of endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE). While surgery is favored for longer life expectancy, stents are preferred in malignant gastric outlet stenosis. The novel EUS-GE technique, employing a lumen-apposing self-expandable metal stent (LAMS), combines the immediate efficacy of stents with the enduring benefits of gastroenterostomy. Despite its promising outcomes, EUS-GE is a technically demanding procedure requiring specialized expertise and facilities.

EUS-guided gastroenterostomy for gastric outlet obstruction: a comprehensive meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

A comprehensive meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE) for benign and malignant gastric outlet obstruction (GOO).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane Library were searched to identify relevant studies. The primary outcomes evaluated technical success, clinical success, and adverse events (AEs).

RESULTS

Twenty‑six studies with 1493 patients were included in this meta-analysis. The pooled rates of technical success, clinical success, and overall AEs of EUS-GE were 94.0%, 89.9%, and 13.1%, respectively. Eight studies were included in the subgroup meta-analysis for comparative evaluation of EUS-GE and surgical gastroenterostomy (SGE), while seven studies were for EUS-GE and enteral stenting (ES). Compared with SGE, the pooled odds ratios (ORs) of technical success, clinical success, and overall AEs of EUS-GE were 0.17 (p = .003), 1.42 (p = .40), and 0.15 (p < .00001), respectively. When compared with ES, the above corresponding pooled ORs were 0.55 (p = .11), 2.64 (p < .0001), and 0.41 (p = .01), respectively.

CONCLUSION

Although it is technically challenging, this largest meta-analysis indicates that EUS‑GE has comparable and high technical and clinical success rates and hence a very effective minimally invasive procedure for GOO.

Endoscopic ultrasound guided gastroenterostomy: Technical details updates, clinical outcomes, and adverse events

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE) has been transformed from an innovative technique, into a viable alternative to enteral stenting and surgical gastrointestinal anastomosis for patients with gastric outlet obstruction. Even EUS-GE guided ERCP and EUS-guided gastrointestinal anastomosis for the treatment of afferent loop syndrome have been performed, giving patients more less invasive options. However, EUS-GE is still a technically challenging procedure. In order to improve EUS-GE, several techniques have been reported to improve the technical details. With EUS-GE widely performed, more data about EUS-GE’s clinical outcomes have been reported. The aim of the current review is to describe technical details updates, clinical outcomes, and adverse events of EUS-GE.

Clinical application and follow-up of electrocautery-enhanced lumen-apposing metal stents for endoscopic ultrasonography-guided interventions

Aim: The lumen-apposing metal stent (LAMS) is a new device that expands the scope of gastrointestinal intervention under endoscopy. LAMS was initially used for the treatment of pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs), but is increasingly being used off-label. The electrocautery system simplifies the deployment of LAMS, making it more suitable for off-label situations. The short-term results of electrocautery-enhanced lumen-apposing metal stents (ECE-LAMS) are satisfactory; however, the long-term follow-up results must be evaluated. The aim of this article is to review the expanded clinical application of ECE-LAMS, the clinical value of on-label and off-label use, and follow-up results.Methods: After searching in PubMed and Web of Science databases using 'electrocautery-enhanced lumen-apposing metal stents' and 'endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) -guided interventions' as keywords, studies related were compiled and examined.Results: ECE-LAMS are widely used for on-label and off-label situations. The short-term and long-term results of ECE-LAMS are satisfactory, but there are still some studies that do not agree with this viewpoint.Conclusion: The clinical application of ECE-LAMS is relatively safe and reliable but more well-designed randomized trials and prospective studies are needed to evaluate the impact of this technology on therapeutic EUS, to improve the safety and success rate of EUS-guided LAMS implantation, and to expand its application in other indications.

Lumen-apposing-metal stent misdeployment in endoscopic ultrasound-guided drainages: A systematic review focusing on issues and rescue management

BACKGROUND

The introduction of lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS) for endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided drainages has marked a turning point in the field of interventional ultrasound and it is gathering worldwide diffusion in different clinical settings. Nevertheless, the procedure may conceal unexpected pitfalls. LAMS misdeployment is the most frequent cause of technical failure and it can be considered a procedure-related adverse event when it hampers the conclusion of the planned procedure or results in significant clinical consequences. Stent misdeployment can be managed successfully by endoscopic rescue maneuvers to allow the completion of the procedure. To date, no standardized indication is available to guide an appropriate rescue strategy depending on the type of procedure or of misdeployment.

AIM

To evaluate the incidence of LAMS misdeployment during EUS-guided choledochoduodenostomy (EUS-CDS), gallbladder drainage (EUS-GBD) and pancreatic fluid collections drainage (EUS-PFC) and to describe the endoscopic rescue strategies adopted under the circumstance.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of the literature on PubMed by searching for studies published up to October 2022. The search was carried out using the exploded medical subject heading terms “lumen apposing metal stent”, “LAMS”, “endoscopic ultrasound” and “choledochoduodenostomy” or “gallbladder” or “pancreatic fluid collections”. We included in the review on-label EUS-guided procedures namely EUS-CDS, EUS-GBD and EUS-PFC. Only those publications reporting EUS-guided LAMS positioning were considered. The studies reporting a technical success rate of 100% and other procedure-related adverse events were considered to calculate the overall rate of LAMS misdeployment, while studies not reporting the causes of technical failure were excluded. Case reports were considered only for the extraction of data regarding the issues of misdeployment and rescue techniques. The following data were collected from each study: Author, year of publication, study design, study population, clinical indication, technical success, reported number of misdeployment, stent type and size, flange misdeployed and type of rescue strategy.

RESULTS

The overall technical success rate of EUS-CDS, EUS-GBD and EUS-PFC was 93.7%, 96.1%, and 98.1% respectively. Significant rates of LAMS misdeployment have been reported for EUS-CDS, EUS-GBD and EUS-PFC drainage, respectively 5.8%, 3.4%, and 2.0%. Endoscopic rescue treatment was feasible in 86.8%, 80%, and 96.8% of cases. Non endoscopic rescue strategies were required only in 10.3%, 16% and 3.2% for EUS-CDS, EUS-GBD, and EUS-PFC. The endoscopic rescue techniques described were over-the-wire deployment of a new stent through the created fistula tract in 44.1%, 8% and 64.5% and stent-in-stent in 23.5%, 60%, and 12.9%, respectively for EUS-CDS, EUS-GBD, and EUS-PFC. Further therapeutic option were endoscopic rendezvous in 11.8% of EUS-CDS and repeated procedure of EUS-guided drainage in 16.1% of EUS-PFC.

CONCLUSION

LAMS misdeployment is a relatively common adverse event in EUS-guided drainages. There is no consensus on the best rescue approach in these cases and the choice is often made by the endoscopist relying upon the clinical scenario, anatomical characteristics, and local expertise. In this review, we investigated the misdeployment of LAMS for each of the on-label indications focusing on the rescue therapies used, with the aim of providing useful data for endoscopists and to improve patient outcomes.