Abstract
To analyze the efficacy and safety of benign esophageal disease used biodegradable (BD) stent or metal stent. The English literatures of benign esophageal disease that were treated by biodegradable or metal stents implantation were retrieved and summarized. In all 323 benign esophageal disease, the most common etiologies were benign refractory stricture, surgical anastomotic stricture and esophageal fistula/leak/perforation, but the main characteristics between the two groups were not significantly different. One hundred fifty-four cases were completely healed by using BD stents or self-expandable metal stents (SEMS) (47.7 %). Clinical success was achieved in 47.7 % of all patients and there was no significant difference between BD stents (51 %) and SEMS (46.2 %) (P = 0.472), while stent migration occurred more frequently with SEMS (33.9 %) than with BD stent (19.6 %) (P ≤ 0.05), and tissue in- or overgrowth occurred more frequently with SEMS (22.2 %) than with BD stents (8.8 %) (P ≤ 0.05). Furthermore, the time about degradation of BD stents in esophageal was longer than removal of SEMS from the esophagus (P ≤ 0.05). Placement of BD stents or SEMS provides effective and safe relief for benign esophageal disease. Clinical success and mortality were not significantly different. BD stents offers an advantage of fewer complications. Although stent placement is a viable strategy in patients with benign esophageal disease, the ideal treatment strategy and further randomized trials with large number of patients are needed.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Benign conditions of esophageal disease include refractory strictures, tracheoesophageal fistula, iatrogenic perforation, or leak. Temporary stent placement is increasingly used to treat a variety of benign esophageal disease. The benefits of esophageal stents are healing without diversion or reconstruction and early return to an oral diet, with minimal mortality and morbidity [1, 2]. Different types of stents have been evaluated for this purpose, included SEMS, SEPS, and most recently, biodegradable stents.
SEMS was initially developed approximately 20 years. A variety of modifications about stent design have been introduced. However, there are still drawbacks of stent placement such as migration, reflux esophagitis, and tumor ingrowth or overgrowth [3]. Especially, the drawback of SEMS is that the stents need to be removed, and it will be difficult sometimes.
An alternative for esophageal stents is the recently introduced BD stents. BD stents have been developed to overcome some of the problems encountered with SEMS. It was metabolized and eventually absorbed by the body. Therefore, it has an advantage that stent removal is not required. The main indication of BD stents includes treatment of benign esophageal disease, since it does not require endoscopic removal [4].
But there are few studies that compared clinical efficacy and safety of SEMS and BD stents. The favorable choice for benign esophageal disease is still no definite answer. We therefore performed a systematic review of the currently available literature to evaluate clinical efficacy and safety of treating benign esophageal disease with different stent designs (SEMS and BD stents).
Materials and Methods
Search Method
Studies were identified by searching CBMDISC, MEDLARS on line (Medline), PUBMED, Springer, Web of Science (SCI), etc. within a date range from Aug. 2007 to Aug. 2013. Each search was performed for studies in the English language and limited to humans. Search strategies were as follows: stents and benign esophageal disease OR refractory strictures OR tracheoesophageal fistula OR iatrogenic perforation or leak. Retrieval resource included Tongji University library and network resources.
Literature Search
All the relevant literatures were retrieved by the above method. Then, a scan of the reference lists of each article was undertaken to identify other relevant articles that were missed in the search. Studies that met the following inclusion criteria were selected: (1) patients with benign esophageal disease; (2) endoscopic stent placement; (3) the participants in the study were humans; and (4) results on a specific stent design (SEMS, FSEMS, PSEMS, PLLA, and BD SX-ELLA). Studies that were in the non-English language, case reports, letters, reviews, editorials, and studies in patients with a malignant indication for stent placement were excluded.
In our paper, we did a study comparing BD stent with SEMS and excluded SEPS mainly based on the three points: (1) the main treatment of benign esophageal disease with stents is SEMS and BD stents; (2) we retrieved few relevant literatures for the plastic stents in recent years that we are unable to complete the effective statistical analysis; (3) SEPS has been rarely used in clinic due to the high rates of some complications of SEPS and the limitation of materials’ own attribute.
One hundred twenty-eight articles in databases were detected. Of these, 14 articles met our inclusion criteria for the pooled analysis (Table 1). A total of seven studies reported results on BD stent placement [5–11], seven on SEMS placement for the treatment of benign esophageal disease [12–18].
Date Abstraction
Date on year of publication, first author, title, stent type, total number of patients included, category of esophageal disease, and outcome of the study were extracted. All abstracts and titles of studies were screened.
Statistical Analysis
After data extraction, data were pooled according to stent design. Data comparison between the different stent designs was performed using chi-squared test and Mann-Whitney test. A P value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Statistical analyses were conducted using SPSS version 17.0.
Results
All studies were published between Aug. 2007 and Aug. 2013. Fourteen studies evaluated 323 patients with completed follow-up, of whom 102 were treated with BD stents and 221 were treated with SEMS. Overall, 176 (54.5 %) patients were male, 118 (36.5 %) patients were female, and 29 other patients’ gender was unknown.
The etiologies of benign esophageal disease were divided into two kinds: RBES and esophageal perforation/leak. Etiology for stent placement was shown in Table 3. There were 231 (71.5 %) patients with RBES, 85 (26.3 %) patients with esophageal perforation/leak, and the remaining 7 (2.2 %) patients with other unknown etiologies (Table 2).
Stent placement outcomes are shown in Table 3. Clinical success (no patients died and no severe life-threatening complications occurred in post operation) was achieved in 47.7 % of all patients and was not significantly different between BD stents (51 %) and SEMS (46.2 %) (P = 0.472). The overall technical success rate of stent placement was 95.4 %, more often with BD stent [n = 98 (96.1 %)] than with SEMS [n = 210 (95.0 %)] (P = 0.074), but there was no significant difference. Re-intervention for incomplete sealing was performed more with SEMS [n = 92 (41.6 %)] than with BD stents [n = 42 (41.2 %)] (P ≤ 0.05), but the difference between the two groups is not significant.
Mortality was 3.4 % in all patients, and there was no significant difference between the two groups. Reasons of death for some patients were cardiac disease (n = 3), aspiration pneumonia (n = 1), and severe persisting sepsis (n = 2). Another three patients died of metastasized renal cell cancer, colorectal cancer, and adenocarcinoma without extrinsic esophageal compression, respectively. And one patient’s death was unknown. Only one patient death was associated with stent.
Thirty-two (9.9 %) patients had main complications (severe life-threatening complications) [BD stent (n = 12) and SEMS (n = 20)], and there was no significant difference between different stent types (P = 0.436). Stent migration occurred more often with SEMS [n = 75 (33.9 %)] than with BD stents [n = 20 (19.6 %)] (P ≤ 0.05), and tissue in- or overgrowth occurred more often with SEMS [n = 49 (22.2 %)] than with BD stent [n = 9 (8.8 %)] (P ≤ 0.05).
Subgroup analysis for BRES was performed (Table 4). Tissue in- or overgrowth occurred more often with SEMS [n = 24 (20.3 %)] than with BD stent [n = 9 (9.9 %)] (P ≤ 0.05). Stent migration was more significantly occurred with SEMS (16.9 %) compared with BD stent (7.7 %) (P < 0.05). No significant differences were found between BD stents and SEMS for the following variables: clinical success, technical success, re-intervention, and main complications (Fig. 1).
Another subgroup analysis for esophageal fistula/leakage/perforation was unfinished completely by a lack of quantitative data. Nevertheless, there is a statistical significance between BD stent and SEMS for technical success (P < 0.05). In contrast to that clinical success is not significantly different between the two groups. And regretfully, we don’t know the partial data about the following variables: re-intervention, main complications, migration, and tissue growth.
Discussion
In our studies, most of the patients (50.7 %, excluding the missing) are treated with endoscopic dilation using bougies or balloons before stent placement. The immediate success rate of dilation in relieving dysphagia is 80 to 90 %, with only a few complications [19–23]. However, recurrent symptoms after dilation within the first year frequently occurred. And surgery can provide definitive treatment but has been associated with considerable mortality and morbidity, including the development of new anastomotic strictures [9, 15, 19, 24, 25]. So, unsuccessful management of benign esophageal stricture by serial endoscopic dilatation or surgery and the management of these refractory strictures have been considered challenging [9, 26, 27].
As a result, the use of temporary stent for the treatment of benign esophageal disease has advanced immensely over the past decade. Temporary placement of self-expandable stents is now used in a variety of benign conditions, including postoperative anastomotic leak, refractory strictures due to peptic ulcers or radiation, and tracheoesophageal fistula [28]. In most benign esophageal conditions, covered SEMS is recommended to use as removal of these stents is easier due to the absence of reactive tissue ingrowth through the uncovered stent mesh [29, 30]. However, metal stents have some deficiencies such as migration, hyperplastic tissue, etc. As a consequence, BD stents have been developed to overcome these problems and have a good clinical effect.
We did a study compared BD stents with SEMS placement in patients with benign esophageal disease of 323 treated patients on various items. Regarding to the clinical success of SEMS and BD stents, the results of our study are clearly shown in Table 4. Clinical success of stent placement was achieved in 47.7 % of reported patients with no significant differences between BD stents and SEMS. The technical success rate of stent placement was 95.4 %, and there was similarly no significant difference. The mortality is 3.4 % in all patients, and the most of the deaths were from BD stents group. However, the death of most patients was irrelevant to BD stents insertion. Only one patient died of the stent. There is no true evidence comparing stent placement and other kinds of treatments. Nonrandomized trial and limited number of patients for such a trial are the cause of difficulties.
The mean time of stent placement for treatment was 12 and 7 weeks, respectively. The mean time of BD stents placement is longer than SEMS; therefore, the duration of BD stents on esophageal lesions is enough. Not only that, the main advantage over SEMS is that endoscopic removal is not needed. BD stents can be metabolized by the body within about 12 weeks.
Stent migration occurred in 29.4 % of patients and was most often occurred with SEMS, compared with BD stents. This result is consistent with subgroup analysis. That is explained by the known reduced anchoring capacity of SEMS compared with BD stents. Furthermore, as the far majority of these patients have no obstructive lesion keeping the stent in place, stent migration is the main factor for re-intervention with SEMS. Re-intervention for incomplete sealing, a procedure-related or stent-related complication, was performed more with SEMS than with BD stents. However, by the subgroup analysis for BRES, there was no clinical statistical significance for re-intervention between BD stents with SEMS. Two types of stents are not guaranteed to solve the problem once. Most patients required multiple interventions.
Tissue in- and/or overgrowth was higher with SEMS than with BD stents, and the same result to subgroup analysis for BRES. Tissue embedment after stent placement renders removal of the stents very difficult, and this benign tissue reaction, which is caused by a local fibrotic reaction and/or the proliferation of granulation tissue, particularly occurs at the uncovered part of SEMS. The majority of SEMS this paper involved is FCSEMS. It has been shown that FCSEMS may be able to overcome the problems of partially or completely uncovered SEMS. The FCSEMS that is applied along its whole length prevents tissue from growing into the stent meshes. However, BD stents are made of a covered mesh and manufactured from polymeric materials including polylactic acid, polyglycolic acid, polycaprolactone, and copolymers or composites of these materials. And recent clinical data are available for the Ella BD stent (Ella-SX, s.r.o., Hradec Kralove, Czech Republic), which is made of polydioxanone. Hence, these stents do not need manual removal. The stents are covered, and tissue in-growth, if it occurs, can anchor the stents.
Some limitations of our study should be taken into account before concluding that a particular stent type is favorable in patients with benign esophageal disease. First, no randomized trials have been conducted. The patient groups are heterogeneous. Our study had a relatively low number of patients per group, which limited the study’s statistical strength. Another potential weakness is the different time to follow-up for the two groups. The BD stent group has a longer follow-up period, which could have influenced the final outcome because, theoretically, the longer the follow-up period is, the higher the probability of dysphagia recurrence. Some studies show that the benefits of temporary stent decreased rapidly with time for non-responders [6, 7, 12, 17, 23].
In conclusion, this review demonstrates that stent placement in patients are effective and safe for benign esophageal disease. It can decrease the burden of repeated endoscopic dilation. Most of the benefits (such as clinical success, technical success and mortality) between BD stents and SEMS were not found to be significantly different; however, a clear advantage of BD stents is that there are fewer complications after completion of the treatment. And BD stents can be metabolized; endoscopic removal is not needed. But the ideal treatment strategy in these patients still needs to be defined, and further randomized trials with large number of patients are needed to compare different stent types.
Abbreviations
- BD stent:
-
Biodegradable stents
- SEMS:
-
Self-expandable metal stents
- FCSEMS:
-
Fully covered self-expandable metal stent
- SEPS:
-
Self-expandable plastic stent
- RBES (BRES):
-
Refractory benign esophageal strictures (benign refractory esophageal strictures)
- PLLA:
-
Poly-1actide-co-glycolic acid
- BD SX-ELLA:
-
the SX-ELLA biodegradable stents (ELLA-CS, Hradec Kralove, Czech Republic)
- SD:
-
Standard deviation
References
Fischer A, Thomusch O, Benz S, von Dobschuetz E, Baier P, Hopt UT (2006) Nonoperative treatment of 15 benign esophageal perforations with self-expandable covered metal stents. Ann Thorac Surg 81(2):467–472
Blackmon SH, Santora R, Schwarz P, Barroso A, Dunkin BJ (2010) Utility of removable esophageal covered self-expanding metal stents for leak and fistula management. Ann Thorac Surg 89(3):931–937
Hirdes MMC, Vleggaar FP, Siersema PD (2011) Stent placement for esophageal strictures: an update
van Boeckel PG, Vleggaar FP, Siersema PD (2013) Biodegradable stent placement in the esophagus. Expert Rev Med Devices 10(1):37–43
Saito Y, Tanaka T, Andoh A et al (2007) Usefulness of biodegradable stents constructed of poly-l-lactic acid monofilaments in patients with benign esophageal stenosis. World J Gastroenterol 13(29):3977–3980
Repici A, Vleggaar FP, Hassan C et al (2010) Efficacy and safety of biodegradable stents for refractory benign esophageal strictures: the BEST (Biodegradable Esophageal Stent) study. Gastrointest Endosc 72(5):927–934
van Hooft JE, van Berge Henegouwen MI, Rauws EA, Bergman JJ, Busch OR, Fockens P (2011) Endoscopic treatment of benign anastomotic esophagogastric strictures with a biodegradable stent. Gastrointest Endosc 73(5):1043–1047
Cerna M, Kocher M, Valek V et al (2011) Covered biodegradable stent: new therapeutic option for the management of esophageal perforation or anastomotic leak. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 34(6):1267–1271
van Boeckel PG, Vleggaar FP, Siersema PD (2011) A comparison of temporary self-expanding plastic and biodegradable stents for refractory benign esophageal strictures. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 9(8):653–659
Griffiths EA, Gregory CJ, Pursnani KG, Ward JB, Stockwell RC (2012) The use of biodegradable (SX-ELLA) oesophageal stents to treat dysphagia due to benign and malignant oesophageal disease. Surg Endosc 26(8):2367–2375
Hirdes MM, Siersema PD, van Boeckel PG, Vleggaar FP (2012) Single and sequential biodegradable stent placement for refractory benign esophageal strictures: a prospective follow-up study. Endoscopy 44(7):649–654
Kim JH, Song HY, Choi EK, Kim KR, Shin JH, Lim JO (2009) Temporary metallic stent placement in the treatment of refractory benign esophageal strictures: results and factors associated with outcome in 55 patients. Eur Radiol 19(2):384–390
Bakken JC, Wong Kee Song LM, de Groen PC, Baron TH (2010) Use of a fully covered self-expandable metal stent for the treatment of benign esophageal diseases. Gastroenterol Endosc 72(4):712–720
Senousy BE, Gupte AR, Draganov PV, Forsmark CE, Wagh MS (2010) Fully covered Alimaxx esophageal metal stents in the endoscopic treatment of benign esophageal diseases. Dig Dis Sci 55(12):3399–3403
Eloubeidi MA, Talreja JP, Lopes TL, Al-Awabdy BS, Shami VM, Kahaleh M (2011) Success and complications associated with placement of fully covered removable self-expandable metal stents for benign esophageal diseases (with videos). Gastrointest Endosc 73(4):673–681
Hirdes MM, Siersema PD, Vleggaar FP (2012) A new fully covered metal stent for the treatment of benign and malignant dysphagia: a prospective follow-up study. Gastrointest Endosc 75(4):712–718
Liu J, Hu Y, Cui C, Li Y, Lin X, Fu J (2012) Removable, fully covered, self-expandable metal stents for the treatment of refractory benign esophagogastric anastomotic strictures. Dysphagia 27(2):260–264
Schweigert M, Solymosi N, Dubecz A et al (2013) Endoscopic stent insertion for anastomotic leakage following oesophagectomy. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 95(1):43–47
Eisen GM, Baron TH, Dominitz JA et al (2002) Complications of upper GI endoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 55(7):784–793
Lew RJ, Kochman ML (2002) A review of endoscopic methods of esophageal dilation. J Clin Gastroenterol 35(2):117–126
Pereira-Lima JC, Ramires RP, Zamin I Jr, Cassal AP, Marroni CA, Mattos AA (1999) Endoscopic dilation of benign esophageal strictures: report on 1043 procedures. Am J Gastroenterol 94(6):1497–1501
Shah JN (2006) Benign refractory esophageal strictures: widening the endoscopist’s role. Gastrointest Endosc 63(1):164–167
Oh YS, Kochman ML, Ahmad NA, Ginsberg GG (2010) Clinical outcomes after self-expanding plastic stent placement for refractory benign esophageal strictures. Dig Dis Sci 55(5):1344–1348
Siersema PD (2009) Stenting for benign esophageal strictures. Endoscopy 41(4):363–373
Dua KS, Vleggaar FP, Santharam R, Siersema PD (2008) Removable self-expanding plastic esophageal stent as a continuous, non-permanent dilator in treating refractory benign esophageal strictures: a prospective two-center study. Am J Gastroenterol 103(12):2988–2994
Siersema PD, de Wijkerslooth LR (2009) Dilation of refractory benign esophageal strictures. Gastrointest Endosc 70(5):1000–1012
de Wijkerslooth LR, Vleggaar FP, Siersema PD (2011) Endoscopic management of difficult or recurrent esophageal strictures. Am J Gastroenterol 106(12):2080–2091, quiz 92
Wadhwa RP, Kozarek RA, France RE et al (2003) Use of self-expandable metallic stents in benign GI diseases. Gastrointest Endosc 58(2):207–212
Sharma P, Kozarek R, Practice Parameters Committee of American College of G (2010) Role of esophageal stents in benign and malignant diseases. Am J Gastroenterol 105(2):258–273, quiz 74
Evrard S, Le Moine O, Lazaraki G, Dormann A, El Nakadi I, Deviere J (2004) Self-expanding plastic stents for benign esophageal lesions. Gastrointest Endosc 60(6):894–900
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Tongji University Library for invaluable technical support.
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no competing interest.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Hang Zhao and Yongxin Zhou contributed equally as the co-first author.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Zhao, H., Zhou, Y., Feng, J. et al. Literature Analysis of the Treatment of Benign Esophageal Disease with Stent. Indian J Surg 78, 6–13 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12262-015-1294-8
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12262-015-1294-8